Noah's Ark 2004

[cerridwen]

There are a handful of forums I could've posted this in, but I thought it'd get the most reads from here... have fun!

It is the year 2004 and Noah lives in the United States.

The Lord speaks to Noah and says: "In one year I am going to make it rain and cover the whole earth with water until all is destroyed. But I want you to save the righteous people and two of every kind of living thing on the earth. Therefore, I am commanding you to build an Ark."

In a flash of lightning, God delivered the specifications for an Ark. Fearful and trembling, Noah took the plans and agreed to build the Ark. "Remember," said the Lord, "You must complete the Ark and bring everything aboard in one year."

Exactly one year later, a fierce storm cloud covered the earth and all the seas of the earth went into a tumult. The Lord saw Noah sitting in his front yard weeping. "Noah." He shouted, "Where is the Ark?"

"Lord, please forgive me!" cried Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems. First, I had to get a permit for construction and your plans did not comply with the codes. I had to hire an engineering firm and redraw the plans. Then I got into a fight with the fire department over whether or not the Ark needed a fire sprinkler system and floatation
devices.

"Then my neighbor objected, claiming I was violating zoning ordinances by building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city planning commission. I had problems getting enough wood for the Ark, because there was a ban on cutting trees to protect the Spotted Owl. I finally convinced the U.S. Forest Service that I needed the wood to save the owls. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service won't let me catch any owls. So, no owls."

"The carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Union. Now I have 16 carpenters on the Ark, but still no owls."

"When I started rounding up the other animals, I got sued by an animal rights group. They objected to me only taking two of each kind aboard.

Just when I got the suit dismissed, the EPA notified me that I could not complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. They didn't take very kindly to the idea that they had no jurisdiction over the conduct of the Creator of the Universe."

"Then the Army Corps of Engineers demanded a map of the proposed new flood plain. I sent them a globe."

"Right now, I am trying to resolve a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that I am practicing discrimination by not taking godless, unbelieving people aboard! The IRS has seized all my assets, claiming that I'm building the Ark in preparation to flee the country to avoid paying taxes. I just got a notice from the state that I owe some kind of user tax and failed to register the Ark as a recreational water craft."

"Finally the ACLU got the courts to issue an injunction against further construction of the Ark, saying that since God is flooding the earth, it is a religious event, therefore unconstitutional. I really don't think I can finish the Ark for another 5 or 6 years!" Noah wailed.

The sky began to clear, the sun began to shine and the seas began to calm. A rainbow arched across the sky. Noah looked up hopefully. "You mean you are not going to destroy the earth, Lord?"

"No," said the Lord sadly. "The government already has."

[Brocktoon]

Ha!
And I bet that could be changed about to fit Canada or Wales too (based on the nonsensical regulation madness in those countries too) lol!

I know a lot of people got tired of all the ill-fated attempt to climb Mt. Ararat and look for Noahs' Ark. I did. Especially after that Astronaut died up there.

The funniest thing happened - Last Summer, Europe had that deadly heat-wave and it seems the snows melted off that 'peculiar' area on Ararat, revealing those 'objects' again.

Now a whole new team of climbers are planning a big expedition.
Honestly, I hope they make it and put to rest 'whatever' that thing is up there.

If its not Noahs Ark then GOOD...... we wont have to wonder anymore lol!

Check out this link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838007/?GT1=3256

Personally.. it looks like a pile of rocks to me??

[Harmony_rain]

I accually watched a special on the ark once and it was really interesting to see all the things they found that could prove that it is the lost ark. The messured the area of the imprint and found it to be of accuret size to fit all those animals. They also found stones far down the mountains that had holes drilled through the top that could be used as anchors on Noah's ship. I think its an awsome thing to find. I hope they discove more when they go back up.

[seahorse]

hey guys, i was excited to see this thread, but I was expecting to read something about the news special on CNN that elaborates on the actual trip up mount Aaraat planned for this summer 2004!!!

the article I read said that last summer the heat wave in Europe revealed a shape under the snow and ice that was so many feet wide and so many feet long. A team for the climb has been put together for the exciting adventure, and I can't wait to see what happens! Could you imagine? they find Noah's ark!!!???what a witness to the world eh? that would be awesome, I am praying that they find it for sure!
I'll try to find the link so y'all can read it for yerselves, if they even keep old news in archives, which they probably do. also, there are websites out there that are dedicated to Noah's ark, you might be able to find some interesting facts if you look it up on your search engines.
let 'em have it Lord!!!LOL

[seahorse]

ok my dudes here's the link please enjoy!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/26/noah.ark.ap/

[Brocktoon]

That Mountain reminds me of the Oak Island 'treasure pit' in the sense that it seems to be 'cursed'.
There have been hundreds of expeditions planned, yet always scrapped.
- The cold war and the fact its right on the border of the former USSR
- Unpredictable weather patterns always seem to protect it lol
- Turkish Islamic Militants were busy fighting with the Turk Gov for years.
- Or..... people just die trying and they gotta retreat.

Turns out... The KGB knew about that 'shape' for the last 40 years. They had recon flights over it just to make sure it wasnt an allied 'spy base' LOL!

Personally.. if it turns out to be a pile of rocks then I will be happy because it will end the speculation.... at least on THAT section.

Harmony... I did see that site with the loadstones. For a while it was the 'official' Noahs Ark but now Im hearing they think its a natural formation, or, an ancient encampment.
Its still pretty 'curious' that it fits the shape of the Ark and there are anchors lying around?!

Cool stuff!

[ChiefCowpie]

the article I read said that last summer the heat wave in Europe revealed a shape under the snow and ice that was so many feet wide and so many feet long. A team for the climb has been put together for the exciting adventure, and I can't wait to see what happens! Could you imagine? they find Noah's ark!!!???what a witness to the world eh? that would be awesome, I am praying that they find it for sure!the story of noah's ark is actually an ancient Sumerian myth that was borrowed by the Hebrews...it would only prove the validity of the Sumerian myths

[cerridwen]

It's been a while since I've been to church or practiced catholisism... but I do still find it rather interesting when there are discoveries made that proves events of the bible... it's kinda cool!

[Brocktoon]

I noticed a logic problem in your logic correction ChiefCowPie...

The Sumerian are the oldest known records of a global flood and of a 'Noah'.

This can mean THREE things:

-The Flood did indeed happen and consequently there are many records (as would be expected) in the Ancient cultures.

- The Sumerians copied there story from somewhere else although WE just happen to have found their version first (including early Hebrews who had not yet written Genesis 'officially')

- The Hebrews derived their story from Gilgamesh.

Just wanted to point that out to avoid confusion.

[ChiefCowpie]

yes the flood happened and many ancient cultures have similar accounts of a flood

the sumerians could not have copied it from elsewhere cuz sumeria is the cradle of civilization

ummm...gilgamesh was a sumerian

no logic problem

just wanted to point that out to avoid confusion.

[Brocktoon]

the story of noah's ark is actually an ancient Sumerian myth that was borrowed by the Hebrews...it would only prove the validity of the Sumerian myths
There are at least two logic problems in this alone.
More if you count your second reply.

I will just let you solve them on your own time :D

Hint... The story of Noah's ark would 'therefore' be a Hebrew Myth derived from a Sumerian Myth.

Hint.. IF it was Noahs Ark discovered then it would prove the validity of who's Ark?

Oh well.. personaly I think its a huge pile of rocks on that mountain... I just cant see how a wooden ark would still be intact after 5000 years and be sitting on top of the mountain like that????

[ChiefCowpie]

Hint.. IF it was Noahs Ark discovered then it would prove the validity of who's Ark?

maritime law concerning lost ships in international waters is that they are owned by the sea until they are found and then its finders keepers, but since the ship is believed to be found within the territorial borders of turkey on mt. ararat, it would belong to turkey

but this may be contested both by israel and iraq (present day sumeria) with both laying claim to the boat much like an airplane that crashes belongs to the country it originated with except in military/spy operations where such a vehicle is confiscated

it could as well be deemed that the boat had militaristic implications since God unleeshed a premeditated first strike upon his enemies and noah was in league with God

i expect this to be a hotly contested ownership issue if the ark is found

[Professor Jumbo]

Yeah, right the flood really happened. It really is fantastically pathetic that people still think that it occured.

How did Noah get all of the animals? Where did he get the penguins for example? The temperature and salinity changes that would have occured in the oceans in such a flood would have destroyed all sea life, so how did he get all of the fish and whales and corals (yes corals are animals, not plants) on the boat? All plant life would have been wiped out, so how did Noah and the animals survive after the flood? While on the ark what did the Lions eat? Where did Noah keep all of the food anyhow. Come to think of it, where did he put the animals? The combined mass and the combined volume of two of every animal species is far great than a boat that size could have contained. Did God shrink the animals down real small? How did Noah keep the animals alive? He would have needed a massive powersupply to keep all of the various rooms properly climate controlled, penguins and alligators cannot live in the same environment. Where did the water for the flood come from? Where did it go? To completely cover the earth in forty days the rain would have had to have been so intense as to be the equivalent of a fire hose spraying down on every single square inch of the planet's surface. The heat generated thereby (yes this would generate quite alot of heat) would have been great enough to boil the oceans.

[Brocktoon]

Although its not explicitly stated in the account - its a good guess that Noah took new-born (or very young) animals.
He also took two or seven of each 'kind'.

Based on the measurements given, it is certainly possible.

(Im pretty sure that marine life were not included)

As to ventilation, feeding etc... no details are given. sorry.

[Professor Jumbo]

Although its not explicitly stated in the account - its a good guess that Noah took new-born (or very young) animals.
He also took two or seven of each 'kind'.

Based on the measurements given, it is certainly possible.

(Im pretty sure that marine life were not included)
Well marine life was not mentioned in the Bible as being included, this though is a problem. I repeat, the tempertaure and salinity changes alone in a flood of such magnitude would have wiped out all marine life with the probable exception of mircoorganisms. So if marine life was not taken on the ark then how did it surive the flood?

In terms of Volume of the ark, using the longest interpretation of that cubit, 18 inches. At "300 cubits, by 50 cubits, by 30 cubits" we arrive at a volume of 1,618,750 cubic feet. Now, given that there are estimated to be nearly 3 billion species of land animals, and given that Noah took two of each, we are left with a figure (rounded up) of .0003 cubic feet or .0036 cubic inches for each animal.

Additionally, how did Noah buit such a big wooden boat? It was made of wood, right? All the technology in the world today would be hard pressed to build a wooden boat so large, or at least one so large that would still hold up under the conditions of a world-wide flood?

And of course there is still the matter of how Noah was able to travel all around the world collecting two of every single species in less than a year and still have time to build the ark. Did Noah really go treking out to the Amazon rainforest? To Antarctica? To New Zealand? To Alaska?

[Brocktoon]

Your making the terrrible assumption the world was the same as it is today.

It could not have been.

Noah would have taken two (or seven) of each 'Kind'.
This would not equal three billion species.

Just as an example. Noah would have taken a litter of Grey Wolves (or even the pre-cursor to that animal) NOT all 500+ types of Dog-Kind animals you see today.

After the flood, the geneticly rich 'kinds' would be dispersed and natural selection (especially in a new and maybe harsher world) would have caused all the kinds to specialise into what we now know as billions of species.

Its highly unlikely the world geography was the same as today. There would not have been an 'Alaska' or 'Tropical amazon'. with 'already specialised' kinds of animals.

While its said 'Noah built the Ark' its probably safe to say this is like saying 'Donald Trump' built the Trump Towers.
Certainly he had crews and labourers and probably even hired skilled craftsmen etc.
No one is suggesting he did it alone by hand.

Same goes for his zoo collection. No one is suggesting he just forraged around in the woods on his spare time away from the Ark.

[Professor Jumbo]

Noah would have taken two (or seven) of each 'Kind'.
This would not equal three billion species.
Yes it would, that is what "each kind" means. Two (or seven) of each kind means just that, of each kind. It does not mean just of few, leaving most kinds behaind as you seem to think.

Just as an example. Noah would have taken a litter of Grey Wolves (or even the pre-cursor to that animal) NOT all 500+ types of Dog-Kind animals you see today.
Exactly, the 500+ domesticated dog breeds are still just one species so he woulod have taken two dogs, though there are several specis of wild dogs. If we were talking breeds of animals (as you seem to be) instead of species then the number becomes far higher than 3 billion. If you want to make sense you will need to come up with a consistent definition of "kinds". For example, cows and blue whales are in the same biological class, does this mean that they are of the same kind?

After the flood, the geneticly rich 'kinds' would be dispersed and natural selection (especially in a new and maybe harsher world) would have caused all the kinds to specialise into what we now know as billions of species.

Right, in 4,000 or so supposed years since the flood. This is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It does support evolution though, ironically enough. The Bible doesn't support it though. But, let us assume that by some miracle (God is good at those) this actually happened. Now how did all of those animals get from the Mountains of Ararat to where they are today? Penguins, (I like them as you probably have noticed) how did penguins (or whatever non-specific Bird that Noah took) evolve into penguins and then get to Antarctica, an environment in which no bird native to the middle east could hope to survive for more than two hours? How did kangaroos and wallabies get to Australia? Did they swim? Did they fly?

Its highly unlikely the world geography was the same as today. There would not have been an 'Alaska' or 'Tropical amazon'. with 'already specialised' kinds of animals. So the only animals alvie just happened to be in Naoh's backyard so to speak? Was the rest of the world devoid of life? Specific geography does not matter. What matter is the size of the planet and the fact that life must have been present nearly everywhere.

While its said 'Noah built the Ark' its probably safe to say this is like saying 'Donald Trump' built the Trump Towers.
Certainly he had crews and labourers and probably even hired skilled craftsmen etc.
No one is suggesting he did it alone by hand.
Of course he didn't do it alone, he has his sons Shem, Ham ,and Japheth. Nothing at all ever is mentioned about him having a giant work crew. Even if he did it does not matter. Even with every piece of modern ship building know how and technology a viable wooden boat that big simply cannot be built. It is not a question of having a crew or not. People have tried, most within the past 100 years, to build wooden boats that big and failed. How then was Noah (and his supposed crew) able to do it so effortlessly.

Same goes for his zoo collection. No one is suggesting he just forraged around in the woods on his spare time away from the Ark.
Okay, so the question remains then. How did he get all of the animals? You say that he didn't go and get them. Did they come to him? Or did he have a crew for that too? Did he have a crew for chopping down all of the trees? From milling the lumber? A crew for drying and curing it? For bringing it to the construction site? For making all of tools, many of which would have to have been designed from the ground up for such an immense project? If he had crews for all of this we are now in the realm of tens of thousands of people working on the ark.

[Brocktoon]

Yes it would, that is what "each kind" means. Two (or seven) of each kind means just that, of each kind. It does not mean just of few, leaving most kinds behaind as you seem to think.
I dont see a problem here but then again - Im not great at math.

One site gives this:

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gen+6:15&version=NKJV)), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Ive seen this forumla worked out by numerous different people and it does work out if you assume that we are looking at young animals.
Some suggest that something like Alligators or birds might even have been taken in the egg stages too. (well.. thats sensible)



Exactly, the 500+ domesticated dog breeds are still just one species so he woulod have taken two dogs, though there are several specis of wild dogs. If we were talking breeds of animals (as you seem to be) instead of species then the number becomes far higher than 3 billion. If you want to make sense you will need to come up with a consistent definition of "kinds". For example, cows and blue whales are in the same biological class, does this mean that they are of the same kind?
Its true that modern (ok.. 18th century people) came up with all kinds of classifications for animals.
These often change or are found to be subjective classifications (i.e. is a bear from the dog kind or another kind to itself?.. lately they are now saying Bears are from the dog family)

There has been a lot of changes in all this because of DNA analysis and archaelogical finds.
For example.. we just recently found out that Polar bears are basically Grizzly cousins. There is very very little difference (although superficially we thought they was a lot more distance between them genetically)

With Noahs Ark and the 'Kinds' we would be looking at one kind of Cat.
This might even be a Cat that no longer exists in itself anymore (like the Sabre Tooth Tiger)
So there would not be three billion species (again.. I dont know what you think a 'species' means?)

Theres no real problem here. We know all Cats have a common ancestor.

[off tangent - a nature show i watched suggested that cats AND dogs both come from a common 'hyena' type ancestor.. which seems outlandish to me]


Right, in 4,000 or so supposed years since the flood. This is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It does support evolution though, ironically enough. The Bible doesn't support it though. But, let us assume that by some miracle (God is good at those) this actually happened. Now how did all of those animals get from the Mountains of Ararat to where they are today? Penguins, (I like them as you probably have noticed) how did penguins (or whatever non-specific Bird that Noah took) evolve into penguins and then get to Antarctica, an environment in which no bird native to the middle east could hope to survive for more than two hours? How did kangaroos and wallabies get to Australia? Did they swim? Did they fly?
You can laugh all you want but you will probably feel silly when you see how quickly natural selection can weed out genetics that dont suit the environment.
Domestic cats brought over to North America who then were separated into the wild managed to eliminate short-hair genes within a few dozen generations (and brutal winters).
The 'bush' coloured ones faired better than the colourful ones and now the descendants are 'camoflauged' quite nicely.

A 'man-made' version is Dog-Breeding. New Breeds were bred out very quickly.. although this is mans hand pushing the genes - dont think dramatic climate changes wouldnt be just as effective.

Speaking of which........ your next question of 'how did they get there?'

IF you are going to premise the argument on 'Lets say The flood story was true...."
then please stick with that.

After the landing on Mr.Ararat we can guess all the animals went off on their merry ways.
It was not until AFTER those days that we see the Earth divided.

As you would expect - gene pools became 'cut off' from others and consequently you would find unique 'kinds' on the separated continents.

Believe me.. animals can move and travel huge distances and we see that happening in just one or two generations today.
Coyotes are now a regular feature west of the Rockies.. and they USED to be a Prairie animal just a few generations ago.
(Grizzlies too.. in fact. .. many people are stunned to know Grizzlies used to be Prairie dwellers just a few generations ago!)

So the only animals alvie just happened to be in Naoh's backyard so to speak? Was the rest of the world devoid of life? Specific geography does not matter. What matter is the size of the planet and the fact that life must have been present nearly everywhere.
We dont know exactly what the Earth was like back then but we make some assumptions based on the text and our own discoveries.
The Earth was not divided.
The Earth was full of huge tropical vegetation
Animal kinds may have lived 'everywhere'

I really dont see any problem here. At worst case - he was importing animal kinds from different regions.
This is not 'crazy talk' since we know full well Babylonians, Greeks, Romans all did the same things.


Of course he didn't do it alone, he has his sons Shem, Ham ,and Japheth. Nothing at all ever is mentioned about him having a giant work crew. Even if he did it does not matter. Even with every piece of modern ship building know how and technology a viable wooden boat that big simply cannot be built. It is not a question of having a crew or not. People have tried, most within the past 100 years, to build wooden boats that big and failed. How then was Noah (and his supposed crew) able to do it so effortlessly.
No.. its doesnt say he had a crew - but when you read 'Herod built a Temple it doesnt explicitly say he had thousands of contractors either.

I have no idea why you keep emphasising 'Wooden' but let me assure you that wood does indeed float.
I cant imagine why anyone would actually try and rebuild a life-sized Ark but I do know that many people have re-created models and...
... Yep.. it floats just fine thanks.
[I will say this... to my knowledge no one is 100% sure what kind of wood 'Gopher wood' is meant to be in our modern class. It was obviously some plentiful wood of the day]

Okay, so the question remains then. How did he get all of the animals? You say that he didn't go and get them. Did they come to him? Or did he have a crew for that too? Did he have a crew for chopping down all of the trees? From milling the lumber? A crew for drying and curing it? For bringing it to the construction site? For making all of tools, many of which would have to have been designed from the ground up for such an immense project? If he had crews for all of this we are now in the realm of tens of thousands of people working on the ark.

I dont agree with your estimate of 'tens of thousands'.

It would definately take hundreds of men.
Not all were necessarily labourers - many may have been only hired to move or transport.
Basically - this is no different than anything else you would build .. now or then.

I really dont know why this presents a dilema for you?

Yes.. its pretty amazing!

So was the Colossus at Rhodes or the Pyramids.. i agree!

The Ark would not necessarily compare to the Pyramids but yes... its an amazing construction for sure!

[ncsu123]

good story, they havent found any geological evidence to support the flood though

[Brocktoon]

good story, they havent found any geological evidence to support the flood though
Ya, I hate to tell you this NCSU - but you are about 20 years behind on your geology ;)

Seriously though. Yes there is plenty of obvious evidence all the world has been underwater at some point.
What you are probably getting stuck on is the 'how many times' and over 'how long' debates.

While everyone agrees there has been a flood at any place on earth - Some say these were thousands and even milllions of 'localised floods'.

Of course, those who stick with Noah believe it was one gigantic flood at one time.

Midnight, I think you were watching the documentary (ies) regarding the Mesopatamian Basin?
For those who hadnt heard its a funny story...

Back in the 'Iron Curtain' days the Russians were doing their own thing in the Caspian sea.
While down there - they came across a rather stunning little thing... An entire beach front way beneath the shores.
After a few decades of uncovering the beachlines around the sea it was pretty clear there was only one possible explanation by default.
(assuming someone didnt build an ancient beach at submarine level ;)

So the Russians knew that the whole area had been flooded at some point in history.. and it was a massive flood at that. (were talking Noah sized flood!)

Nowadays its pretty much self-evident to everyone (of all sciences) there was indeed a massive deluge.
This time, many critics of Genesis say that while ..Yes, there is historical and scientific proof of a 'world' flood - they insist that it was 'Noahs World' only. (The Mesopotamia region of Earth)
They argue that 'to Noah' it would appear as if the entire planet itself was flooded since this was the 'whole world' to their minds.

... Another interesting change over here in my part of the world...

As you may know - you can climb to some of the highest peaks in the Rocky Mountains, break apart some Shale and find fossilised Marine life.
For as long as I can recall the 'official' explanation was that originally these were 'sea beds' but then the mountains were formed after the fossils and uplifted to these heights.

Somewhere in the last 10 years (i dont recall any announcements) the 'official' explanation was discarded and now they are saying the Rockies were indeed full of water. Huge gigantic lakes filled all the valleys.

Scientific explanations continue to change but oddly, they are always getting closer and closer to the original account of Noah it seems.

[Professor Jumbo]

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits [SNIP] or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.
So we are agreed so far, more or less anyway. My calculations, probably using a slightly larger cubit, came to a total volume of 1.618 million cubic feet.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars.
Hold on there, just where did you get this firgure of "16,000 animals"?
However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.Oh, he didn't take the insects did he? Where then did they come from or how did they survive the flood?


Ive seen this forumla worked out by numerous different people and it does work out if you assume that we are looking at young animals.
Some suggest that something like Alligators or birds might even have been taken in the egg stages too. (well.. thats sensible)
Really? How was Noah able to incubate the eggs? Once the egs hatched, the birds eggs anyway, how did the baby birds survive? All bird species require adult birds to feed the baby birds for anywhere from two weeks to several months. And don't try and tell me that Noah did it. There is simply no way that he could have known about and found all of the required food even if he did he would never have had time to do anything else, epecially after the flood was over and he and the baby birds were left on a desolate and barren landscape. Also, if he took only eggs of some species, how did he know that he was taking one male and one female? You can't tell just by looking at the outside of the egg.



With Noahs Ark and the 'Kinds' we would be looking at one kind of Cat.
This might even be a Cat that no longer exists in itself anymore (like the Sabre Tooth Tiger)
So there would not be three billion species (again.. I dont know what you think a 'species' means?)
"Species" is the most specific classification in the Linnean hierarchy which is as follows: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Sometimes "subphylum" is included between Phylum and class. Two animals of opposite sex can be said to be of the same species of they can breed and produce fertile offspring. For example, while horse and donkey can breed and produce offspring they are not of the same species since their offsrping, mules, are infertile. Fertile Mules have been known to exist as result of some genetic mutation, but once we get into the realm of genetic mutation we are talking about something completely different. But I had figured that you already knew all of this, it is fairly elementary.


Theres no real problem here. We know all Cats have a common ancestor. Okay, what's your point? We also know that amphibians evolved from fish, that reptiles evolved from amphibians, that dinosaurs evloved from reptiles, that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and that mammals evolved from reptiles as well. So why didn't Noah just take a couple of lung fish on the ark and hope that they evolved back into everything else?

You can laugh all you want but you will probably feel silly when you see how quickly natural selection can weed out genetics that dont suit the environment.
Domestic cats brought over to North America who then were separated into the wild managed to eliminate short-hair genes within a few dozen generations (and brutal winters).
The 'bush' coloured ones faired better than the colourful ones and now the descendants are 'camoflauged' quite nicely.

A 'man-made' version is Dog-Breeding. New Breeds were bred out very quickly.. although this is mans hand pushing the genes - dont think dramatic climate changes wouldnt be just as effective.
Except that all of these examples assume a fairly large base population to begin with. Noah took only two of each animal. While natural selection can happen very quickly, it is also the case that the animlas involve die more often than they live. This is exactly how it works, all of the unfit animals die out leaving only the fit ones. From base populations of two Noah would have had to have taken super animals that could survive every single climate on earth.


I'll get to the rest of your post later, I have to go now. I will, however, leave you with this. When the flood was over the ark landed high up in the mountians on a now totally lifeless planet, so what did the animals eat? What, for example, did the Lions eat? The only animlas that the Lions could have eaten happened to be the last of their kind. So did the Lions cause extinctions? How about Tigers, what did they eat? What did alligators eat, what did the predatory birds eat? How about herbivorious animals. Since all plant life would have been wiped out in the flood what did they eat? For that matter what did Noah and his family eat?

[cerridwen]

professor, I really think that you're over-thinking this whole topic.

[Brocktoon]

ProfessorJ,

Ya,, I think whats happening is your supplying an Ark-full of What-ifs.
Nothing wrong with that either but you get us into a situation where there is a solution or problem to any of these 'What-ifs'.

How did they get food?
Ok.. maybe Noah had lots of provisions.
Maybe he didnt?
Maybe they feasted on carcasses and washed up vegetation?

Then you can say - "Well what if the vegetation was rotten!"

Let me address two issues I think you might be misunderstaning a bit:

When we talk about natural selection, we dont need millions of years. This is not speaking of upward evolution where new genetic information is appearing in each generation over millions of generations.

Natural selection can work extremely fast.
If you have a sibling - you might have noticed that you selected a lot of different genes from your parents than they did!

Depending on climates and random gene pool separations - the 'Siblings' of the Parent Cats (were just guessing it was Sabretooths) could become Lions and Tigers very very quickly!

.........

Just to clarify something - there were two of every kind, but in the case of what they called 'Clean animals' there were 5 extra ones.

So something like Cats would have a base population of Seven.
This is probably Three 'pairs' and one extra.
(again.. we are just assuming he didnt take 7 males lol)

You need to keep in mind - the original 'kinds' had ALL the genetic variations that any of the offspring may select.
Our 'SabreTooth' Cat would have all the possible genetic information which could be found in any type of Cat today.

.......

I honestly dont know how to incubate eggs so you might have a good point on that one?
Maybe there were two birds and the eggs didnt count as birds until hatched??

[campbell34]

Yeah, right the flood really happened. It really is fantastically pathetic that people still think that it occured.

How did Noah get all of the animals? Where did he get the penguins for example? The temperature and salinity changes that would have occured in the oceans in such a flood would have destroyed all sea life, so how did he get all of the fish and whales and corals (yes corals are animals, not plants) on the boat? All plant life would have been wiped out, so how did Noah and the animals survive after the flood? While on the ark what did the Lions eat? Where did Noah keep all of the food anyhow. Come to think of it, where did he put the animals? The combined mass and the combined volume of two of every animal species is far great than a boat that size could have contained. Did God shrink the animals down real small? How did Noah keep the animals alive? He would have needed a massive powersupply to keep all of the various rooms properly climate controlled, penguins and alligators cannot live in the same environment. Where did the water for the flood come from? Where did it go? To completely cover the earth in forty days the rain would have had to have been so intense as to be the equivalent of a fire hose spraying down on every single square inch of the planet's surface. The heat generated thereby (yes this would generate quite alot of heat) would have been great enough to boil the oceans.

Some people believe the flood never happened. Yet if that is true, could someone please explain why they are finding Pillar lava on the top of mount Ararat. You see, pillar lava can only occure when a volcanic vent is underwater. So my question is, why are they finding pillar lava at 14,000 feet?

[bandit28]

Ok, so it is evident that a few people refuse to believe the flood actualy happened. It's ok though. We run into this type of thing often. First off(non believers really hate this) this is God's plan here. I really don't know how Noah was able to feed all the animals or keep everything clean(sanitation wise). I do have my own opinions on some of these matters, however, let's look at the basic problem here. It isn't just the fact that non believers see this as imposable, it's more along the fact that they do not want to accept anything they don't or can't understand. So, in that same logic(where a non believer refuses to believe) let's ask a deeper question that relates in a way to the repopulation of the earth. I wonder, if God didn't create us, and we evolved from some micro organic life form that formed from some electric storm out in sea, how did we as humans become so many? Oh, and how did we all become so different? Wait, and how did we get all over the earth? I honestly have no clue as to what or how you would answer this without creation in mind. Point is, we humans are very different from each other, and we are spread all over this world. Amazingly, this topic is spoke of in The Bible.

Now, some people will ask "Ok, well, then what about proof? Ah ha, we couldn't get ya on how, but we got ya now on proof". Well, hold on a second. First off, lets look at the layout of the world in it's current form. I am sure you all remeber from way back in the day at school that big ole world map laid out flat. Did you ever notice how each continent looked like a puzzle piece? Were you ever tempted to cut each one out and tape them back together? It really is amazing to see how it all fit's together. So, we are now at a time when the world as we know it was different. When everything is together and not spread out. "Ok, but that still doesn't proove anything" LOL, hold on a sec, I'm not finnished. So Noah build the ark, and In Genesis 6:19–20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+6:19-20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on), the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the 'clean' animals) were brought by God to the Ark(that answers your question of how all the animals were gathered). This would also include those ever popular dinosaurs. "Hold on hold on, wait a minute, you are telling me now that not only you believe the great flood happened, but that also dinosaurs were onboard and alive at the same time man was? This doesn't proove anything except that you are insaine!" Yes yes, I know, a lot of non believers feel this way. Let me continue will you? In the end this will all come together. We all know and believe that dinosaurs existed at some point and time on this earth. We also know that in order to find proof of these dinosaurs one must look under the surface of the earth. Now, those wonderful evolutionists would say that these great animals(and not all dinosaurs were big) died from some huge meteor that struck the earth and killed everything living on it(wich odly enough means that the whole evolution process had to start from scratch again). Here is what I say. God gathered all the animals for Noah to put on the Ark.."WAIT!!! Dinosaurs wern't around then! They.." Hold on..you sure do interupt a lot. In the book of Job, you read of some things happening to a man. I quote Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Archives



Job, due to his great suffering, criticized the working of Jehovah in his life. Accordingly, the Lord, in a devastating examination of the patriarch, illustrated His own power and wisdom (and, by contrast, Job’s pathetic ignorance) with a series of examples from nature (Job 38-41). In this connection, reference is made in chapter 40 to a creature known as “behemoth” (vv. 15-24).

Though the Hebrew term can be used of “beasts” in general (cf. Deut. 28:26), in Job 40 there is an obvious reference to a specific animal. The plural form of the noun, together with the fact that it is used with singular verbs and pronouns, indicates that a great beast is in view. Because the translators did not know what type of creature was under consideration in this context, they left the word untranslated, hence, the anglicized form “behemoth” appears in our common versions.

For lack of a better theory, most scholars have identified this animal with the hippopotamus (cf. ASV fn). A careful analysis of the context, however, will reveal that the hippopotamus does not fit the description of behemoth as given by the Lord. Consider the following factors.

It is believed by some scholars that behemoth is related to an Egyptian term, peheme, roughly rendered “ox of the water.” That this did not denote a hippopotamus is evidenced by the fact that the Egyptians had other words for that creature.
In Job’s narrative behemoth is described as a grass-eater that is very strong, with great muscles (15-16). He moves his tail like a cedar tree (17). Even Frances Anderson, who identifies this creature as a hippo, admits: “It is hard to see how his tail can be compared to a cedar, for the tail of the hippopotamus is small and short” (Commentary on Job, London: Tyndale, 1976, p. 276). Behemoth’s skeleton is like a massive framework of brass and iron (18). He is “chief” (i.e., first in size, might) of the works (creatures) of God; so huge, in fact, that only his Maker dare approach him with the sword (19).

Though the hippo weighs about four tons, some dinosaurs weighed thirty tons! Behemoth is so powerful that no man is able to capture him (24). This descriptive can hardly apply to the hippopotamus for Egyptian monuments frequently picture warriors attacking the hippo single-handed. The vegetation of whole mountains is said to supply this behemoth’s food, yet the hippopotamus eats only about 200 pounds of herbage daily, and he stays near the water. One is almost forced to conclude that no creature on earth today fits the detailed description of behemoth in Job 40. Not only is that proof from the Biblical aspect, but he also provides proof from the historical aspect, and I quote



There is a growing body of evidence that dinosaurs and humans were contemporary. In 1970 newspapers reported the discovery of cave paintings in Zimbabwe. The paintings were made by bushmen who ruled that area from about 1500 B.C., until a couple of hundred years ago. Along with accurate representations of the elephant and the giraffe, is a painting of an Apatosaurus (brontosaurus). These art works have greatly puzzled scientists since bushmen are known to have painted from real life! (Bible-Science Newsletter, April 15, 1970, p. 2). About seventy years ago, Dr. Samuel Hubbard, curator of archaeology in the Oakland (California) Museum, discovered dinosaur carvings on the cliff walls of the Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. One remarkable carving resembles a Tyrannosaurus. Nearby, dinosaur tracks were preserved in the rock surface. (For a picture of this carving, see our book, The Mythology of Modern Geology (http://www.courierpublications.com/), 1990 edition, p. 31.)

[bandit28]

300 characters to long, had to break it up:


Ok? Can I continue now? "Hrmm, ok go on". Alrighty then. So, now Noah has all the creatures God gathered, and the great flood begins. Now so many years later, we see that there is loads of evidence burried underground of what happened in the past. Let me ask you, when you stand on the beach at the shore line and let the water go over your feet, what happens? Your feet begin to get covered in sand correct? Well look at what we have here...A huge flood, covering the entire world and evintualy burying everything. "Wait wait WAIT. What about human fossils?" Good question, you don't miss much do you? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm

Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument. At least four of the ten individuals are female. One is an infant. Some of the bones are articulated. Some are not, appearing to have been washed into place. No obvious tools or artifacts were found associated with the bones. The bulldozer driver who uncovered the first bones in 1971 expresses certainty that there were no tunnels or cracks in the extremely hard overlying layers of rock. The bones are partially replaced with malachite (a green mineral) and turquoise, thus appropriately named "Malachite Man".

The evidence appears obvious that these 10 men, woman and children, were buried rapidly by some catastrophe, like a flood. Articulated skeletons indicate rapid burial. Some propose to explain these bones by arguing that they were mining, when the mine collapsed. However there is no indication of tunnels, and woman and small children would not likely be included in a mining operation. Additionally, no tools have been found and there are no crushed bones which would be expected if the mine caved in. Another invalid explanation is that this is a mass grave and they were buried. This cannot be true because the living would have to dig a grave 50-100 feet deep through extremely hard sandstone layers. The modern mining operation was halted in the 1970's because the sandstone was so hard it was destroying the bulldozers. These humans appear to have been buried by the same catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in this continent spanning formation. Humans and dinosaurs must have lived at the same time! Well, there ya have it. We Christians believe in The Word of God. God shows us evidence that can't be denied(though in the end, many will still refute it). From the gathering of the animals, to the building of the Ark, to the great flood that wiped out the earth, to the evidence left behind, we Christians believe in The Word of God.

[bandit28]

Does this mean we have believers now? A whole day without anyone replying. Praise The Lord!

[bandit28]

Awwww come on, no more debate? Ok, so if everyone here now believes that the flood happened, that means you are admiting that God exists. Now it is just plane ole denial if you refuse Jesus Christ.

[campbell34]

Awwww come on, no more debate? Ok, so if everyone here now believes that the flood happened, that means you are admiting that God exists. Now it is just plane ole denial if you refuse Jesus Christ.
Great job man. It's hard for the other side to debate when all the evidence is on your side. Keep up the good work.

[mother_nature's_son]

A 450 foot boat made of wood would sink. Steel reinforcement would be necessary to keep it’s shape. Not even 19th century engineers could build a boat that big out of wood alone. The wood would distort in the water, and without steel reinforcement, would spring hundreds of leaks.

Not only that but, the amount of water needed to flood the continents cannot be found in the oceans, ice caps, rocks, or atmosphere -all combined-. If water was pumped out from inside earth's crust, it would carry with it noxious sulfur rich gases that would leave creatures unable to breathe.

A global flood would have changed the atmosphere of the earth to the point that the water vapor dissolved in the air would cause creatures to drown by breathing and atmospheric pressure would crush lungs.

[bandit28]

Really? Can yuo proove it? Or is it just speculation and math? Have you attempted to build a boat that size? Have you caused it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights to see what would happen? Perhaps we were at a lower elevation at that time. Your science and theories are no match for hard evidence such as what I have give nyou. Try as you might, in the end, you will fail.

[mother_nature's_son]

Have you attempted to build a boat that size? That's the thing- nobody has attempted to build a boat that size out of wood alone, because it would sink. Engineering and physics, its very simple.

Perhaps we were at a lower elevation at that time.Lower elevation, as in, higher sea level? This would just mean that less water is locked up in glaciers at the poles. Either way, the water needed to flood the continents does not exist -oceans, glaciers, rocks, and atmosphere- combined.

Your science and theories are no match for hard evidence such as what I have give nyou. Try as you might, in the end, you will fail.huh?
I have not seen you give any 'hard evidence'.
I am going to fail? What do you mean? Fail what?

[Spiritforces]

Bandit28

Technically, do you think there is a difference between understanding there has been a great flood (this is depicted in most religion and cults older than Torah)
and call himself a Christian?

[Brocktoon]

That's the thing- nobody has attempted to build a boat that size out of wood alone, because it would sink. Engineering and physics, its very simple.
Yes, its very simple.
Unfortunately, not the way you have assumed.

They have re-created Noahs Ark in numerous scaled models (which is really a 'Barge') and it most certainly does float.
There is every reason to believe it was re-inforced with iron, however, all wood boats can work.
Engineering and Physics is how it works. Simple indeed.

Lower elevation, as in, higher sea level? This would just mean that less water is locked up in glaciers at the poles. Either way, the water needed to flood the continents does not exist -oceans, glaciers, rocks, and atmosphere- combined.
I wish you could see the terrible mistake you are making.
You propose that 'If' such a cataclysm ever happened it would 'therefore' completely re-arrange the environment as we know it.
Then..
(and watch this)
You presume the conditions of the earth were both the same before and after this hypothetical cataclysm!?

'IF' the earth was flooded like that, then how in the world of all things logical would or could we assume the earth was 'the same' as it is now?
Certainly this would be the 'aftermath' and whatever was prior would certainly be different.

huh?
I have not seen you give any 'hard evidence'.
I am going to fail? What do you mean? Fail what?
Im not going to call for you to 'Fail' or anything like that.

Im just going to encourage you to investigate well-inderstood scientific findings demonstrating (not theorising) that there most certainly was a massive flood in (at least) the Black Sea region.

It well understood and Universally agreed that most any part of the earth has been either underwater or awashed in sediment at 'some point'.

This is why seashells are found on mountain tops and dinosaurs found encased in hardened mud.

So, 'IF' you are going to insist the world hasn't been flooded then you will probably fail alright.

You 'Can' attempt to prove these were millions of 'localised' floods' over 'millions of years.
Yes - you have a chance that way.

btw.. one of many articles on the now universally understood 'Great Flood' you can check out this article.
(NOT a 'Creation Science' website but a Petroleum Researcher Site)
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/1999/04apr/greatflood.html

[mother_nature's_son]

They have re-created Noahs Ark in numerous scaled models (which is really a 'Barge') and it most certainly does float.
There is every reason to believe it was re-inforced with iron, however, all wood boats can work.Please offer a link where I can see a 450 foot 'barge' that is made completely out of wood float on a stormy ocean for 40 days and 40 nights.

And no, there is no reason to believe it was reinforced with iron because the bible describes it's construction and it says nothing about iron.

I wish you could see the terrible mistake you are making.
You propose that 'If' such a cataclysm ever happened it would 'therefore' completely re-arrange the environment as we know it.Brock, you seem to be confused here.

I say- 'A global flood would have changed the atmosphere of the earth to the point that the water vapor dissolved in the air would cause creatures to drown by breathing and atmospheric pressure would crush lungs.'

I said nothing about 'a complete re-arrangement of the environment'. I spoke exclusively of earth's atmosphere.

Then..
(and watch this)
You presume the conditions of the earth were both the same before and after this hypothetical cataclysm!?Brock, brother, I presumed nothing about 'the CONDITIONS of earth' pre and post flood. You are exaggerating your terms greatly.

What I have done, -pre and post flood-, is safely presumed that the amount of water we find on earth (oceans, atmosphere, rocks, and glaciers) has not changed.

'IF' the earth was flooded like that, then how in the world of all things logical would or could we assume the earth was 'the same' as it is now?
Certainly this would be the 'aftermath' and whatever was prior would certainly be different.I never assumed that, pre and post flood, 'the EARTH was the same'. You are giving a completely false impression of what I said.

I said the amount of water that exists on our planet is the same!

Water re-cycles itself on earth, it does not leave the atmosphere. The amount of water that existed 2,000 years ago, still exists now -and it has never been enough to completely flood the continents-.

Im just going to encourage you to investigate well-inderstood scientific findings demonstrating (not theorising) that there most certainly was a massive flood in (at least) the Black Sea region.I am familiar with this flood and Robert Ballard's research of it. The Black Sea flood happens to be a perfect model for an event that birthed legends of a world-wide flood among ancient peoples in that area of the world.

[Brocktoon]

"I am familiar with this flood and Robert Ballard's research of it. The Black Sea flood happens to be a perfect model for an event that birthed legends of a world-wide flood among ancient peoples in that area of the world."
So lets just stop and agree on this much.

This is pretty signifigant and worth stopping and examing.
Have no idea why you wouldnt even mention this before?

We can all agree that a massive flood did indeed cover this part of the earth.

It fine if you want to believe it could not have covered more of the earth or that it happened 7,000 years ago and not 5,000.

However,

Worth mentioning next time you suggest there is nothing to the flood accounts.
You all but agreed there WAS a cataclysmic flood.
Come on.

[mother_nature's_son]

Worth mentioning next time you suggest there is nothing to the flood accounts. You all but agreed there WAS a cataclysmic flood.
Come on.Brock, you are confusing yourself again.

Note that all of my posts can be read here on page #4.

I want you to go back over my posts and see that I argued, exclusively, against a WORLDWIDE flood; never against a 'cataclysmic' flood.

Thus, it follows that I also argued against the notion of a 450 foot all wood boat being the salvation for terrestrial life on earth.

I also remind you, Brock, that this thread is on the subject of Noah's ark. From where we are settled at this point, you seem to be agreeing that the account of the ark in Genesis is not factual or literal.


Have no idea why you wouldnt even mention this before?
Because there are simpler means of disproving the biblical account of a worldwide flood. Sometime I will present a great deal of information on the Black Sea Flood.

[campbell34]

Brock, you are confusing yourself again.

Note that all of my posts can be read here on page #4.

I want you to go back over my posts and see that I argued, exclusively, against a WORLDWIDE flood; never against a 'cataclysmic' flood.

Thus, it follows that I also argued against the notion of a 450 foot all wood boat being the salvation for terrestrial life on earth.

I also remind you, Brock, that this thread is on the subject of Noah's ark. From where we are settled at this point, you seem to be agreeing that the account of the ark in Genesis is not factual or literal.


Because there are simpler means of disproving the biblical account of a worldwide flood. Sometime I will present a great deal of information on the Black Sea Flood.
If there was not a WORLDWIDE flood, could someone explain why they are finding pillar lava at the 14,000 foot altitude on mount Ararat? Pillar lava can only be formed when a volcanic vent is submerged underwater.

[mother_nature's_son]

If there was not a WORLDWIDE flood, could someone explain why they are finding pillar lava at the 14,000 foot altitude on mount Ararat? Pillar lava can only be formed when a volcanic vent is submerged underwater.
Ok, first you are going to have to elaborate on, or specify, what this 'pillar lava' is that you speak of.

[Brocktoon]

Brock, you are confusing yourself again.

Note that all of my posts can be read here on page #4.

I want you to go back over my posts and see that I argued, exclusively, against a WORLDWIDE flood; never against a 'cataclysmic' flood.
Then you can go back and note to yourself that I never asserted otherwise.

I DID mention that you have (until now) failed to mention that you do believe in a cataclysmic flood that whiped out the 'known world' or Ancient Mesopotamia and virtualy all of its terrestrial life.

This is pretty signifigant when you are making the claim a world-wide flood never happened.
You might want to mention your belief in a cataclysmic flood in the beginning so we all have a point of agreement to begin with?

Thus, it follows that I also argued against the notion of a 450 foot all wood boat being the salvation for terrestrial life on earth.
'Thus it followed' that you brought up another distinct assertion unto itself that the boat as described in Genesis could not float.
Though Scale models of this boat DO FLOAT - you changed it to a demand to see an actual size boat.

You also insisted iron rods could not have been used becasue the general diagram and instructions did not specify it.
So now you insist it was 'All wood' and did not have anything else.

According to you - it did not have a rudder, bathrooms or dove-tailed woodwork because 'It does not state that'?


I also remind you, Brock, that this thread is on the subject of Noah's ark. From where we are settled at this point, you seem to be agreeing that the account of the ark in Genesis is not factual or literal.
No it does not seem that way.


Because there are simpler means of disproving the biblical account of a worldwide flood. Sometime I will present a great deal of information on the Black Sea Flood.
How does the word 'Because' start this assertion.
Never mind.

Do you actually intend to 'Disprove' the Worldwide flood by agreeing that there was a massive Black Sea Flood?
This should be fascinating to watch!

[Brocktoon]

Just want to pop in here while I have the links on the clipboard...


Im a little bit concerned when Critics OR Christians believe they have read 'facts' when they only read someones uninformed opinion or speculation.

A good example are 'Skeptic' sites which 'sound' like they are scientifically backed when in actuality are simply 'saying things' they 'feel like'.

Many 'articles' will simply state (as if some understood research) that there is no way to account for all the water needed to flood the earth.

A reader wanting to believe them will often be convinced he 'now knows' this is an established principle without questioning 'WHY' the skeptic has stated this.

Christians are too often guilty of this too.
"They HAVE found Noah's Ark..."
Not realising that this is an opinion you read - NOT an actual fact. Even if it was presented, as if, it was 'decided'.

Two responsible links explaining why the entire Earth was flooded.


Anyway. Where did this water come from:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
Where did it go?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

Critics now have to admit there was .. at a minimum .. a massive flood in, at least, the Black Sea region centuries ago.
What is 'Sheer Balls' is that they are actually trying to 'turn this around' for their own argument.
LMAO!
Sorta like "Ya .. ok.. Ok we will 'Give you' that a small cataclysmic flood did happen yes... but we demand you drop the bigger charges"

But seriously.. here is a link on that:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/crs-blacksea.html

Since no one is going to build an life-sized version of the Ark (and we dont know [i]precisely its shape or specific details anyway)
we have to do our best at re-creating it on paper (or in scale versions)

here is a comprehensive study (Somewhat complicated for those of us not handy with 'mathy stuff')
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_ArkSafety.asp
[some critics think it left out 'Forward Velocity' for what that is worth]

Just for fun - there is certainly a very good explanation for how 'all the animals' got on the Ark.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

[mother_nature's_son]

I DID mention that you have (until now) failed to mention that you do believe in a cataclysmic flood that whiped out the 'known world' or Ancient Mesopotamia and virtualy all of its terrestrial life.

This is pretty signifigant when you are making the claim a world-wide flood never happened.
This is absolutely NOT significant when claiming that a worldwide flood never happened! The Black Sea is what, like 2% of the area of the Earth's surface?

The way that the Black Sea flood relates to Noah's flood, is that the Black Sea flood is a perfect model for what spurred the mythological creation of Noah's flood.

Im sure you know that the Black Sea flood is very well understood by science.

Do you actually intend to 'Disprove' the Worldwide flood by agreeing that there was a massive Black Sea Flood?
This should be fascinating to watch!
So you are just incapable then, of seeing the difference between a flood the size of a lake and a flood that completely covers the continents of Earth?

[POPthree13]

Just for fun - there is certainly a very good explanation for how 'all the animals' got on the Ark.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
I think 'very good explanation' is a bit of an overstatement. First the article states there are 1 Million species and begins to break this down. There are about 1.8 Million NAMED species and scientist assume that there are between 5 and 20 million TOTAL species on earth. Most of which, obviously, await discovery. Now, of course you have to remove all sea dwelling creatures, which do accoutn for a lot of them, but there are still over 700,000 NAMED animals which need to be captured in pairs. That's 1.4 million animals in an ark the size of your average Super Wal Mart store. If he could find and capture a pair of animals every hour (without any cars, planes or engines to move him around) and he collected 24 hours a day it would only take 160 years to get them all collected. Now how he got to Australia and South and North America to capture all the animals found ONLY Here is another question altogether.

The article you link to says that Noah could have captured as few as 2000 animals (or 1000 species) there are over 3,500 species of land mammals alone - thats 7000 animals right there. Where they get their bogus info is quite beyond my imagination. Then of course he had to feed and water them... which your article just says they wen't 'dormant'. Ummmm.. OK. But even when animals go dormant (which very few do, and CERTAINLY not for 371 days) they consume tremendous amounts of food before they hibernate - which is generally only for a couple of months.

This story, interpretted word for word is just completely infeesible. Did a flood happen in the middle east around the time indicated in the bible? It sure as hell could of. Great floods are recorded throughout history... Did a man build an ark and then manage to trap EVERY species on earth with primative technologies, no real scientific classification system, and no motorized trasit? I seriously question your intelligence if you buy it. Even the Croc Hunter in all his glory could do no such thing.

PS: I love how your link suggests Dinosaur fossils are the evidence of the flood. Dinosaurs walked the earth 248 TO 65 million YEARS AGO... when was that flood? ;)

[mother_nature's_son]

Im a little bit concerned when Critics OR Christians believe they have read 'facts' when they only read someones uninformed opinion or speculation.Just like you are doing with your links right now?

Anyway. Where did this water come from:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.htmlThis link presents 2 theories for where the water came from.

1. It came from the Earth's crust through volcanic activity.
2. It came from a vapor canopy.

The link itself says that number 2 is no longer thought of as a significant source of flood waters.

So that leaves number 1 which, incidently, I previously mentioned.

"If water [enough to flood the continents] was pumped out from inside earth's crust, it would carry with it noxious sulfur rich gases that would leave creatures unable to breathe."

Where did it go?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
This link claims- The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the flood.

Anybody who knows anything about plate tectonics knows that this claim is complete foolishness.

Tectonic plates move mere inches a year, and this link is claiming they moved hundreds or thousands of feet at the end of a 40 day flood.

Even though it is impossible, if tectonics plates moved as much as they say at the end of this flood, earthquakes would abound across the entire surface of the Earth. The tidal waves created by this would be unfathomably large. The sea would swallow Noah's ark in an instant.

More information on how it is impossible that tectonic plates ever moved that fast is available upon request.


Critics now have to admit there was .. at a minimum .. a massive flood in, at least, the Black Sea region centuries ago.
What is 'Sheer Balls' is that they are actually trying to 'turn this around' for their own argument.

Why can't you see the difference between a lake flood and a world flood?

Explain to me, Brock, how the Black Sea flood relates to the authenticity of Noah's flood.

[Brocktoon]

So we all agree that the evidence is overwhelming that a massive flood overtook the Black Sea region. (actually what we think is that the Black Sea was the source) The Flood in question is NOT 'The Black Sea' 'flooding over' but rather a massive deluge over a good size peice of the Earth!

Now I notice we are also being forced (by overwhelming research) to agree that most regions of the Earth have been under water at some point.

I think we can stop debating whether or not the planet has ever been flooded.

The disagreement is now about 'How'.

Was it thousands of massive (yet localised) floods - 0r - did it happen during one cataclysmic year?

Did it happen 700 trillion years ago (or much more recently as some theorise, , say two million?)
Or did these happen 5,000 years ago?
(coinciding with the beginning of known human history)

For the guy wondering why Dinosaurs are included as 'evidence' of a world-wide flood:
Its because Dinosaurs (and not limited to) are found fossilised in sediment all over the world.
As to Dinosaurs living 20 million years ago - that is your guesstimate, not mine.

[StonerBill]

it seems this has gone around in teh cilces, for teh good half hour ive been reading thsi thread.

brock's main problems in his arguements is this (though he has been putting up a butter show than that other guy who pretended to be a 'non-bleiver himself showing all teh rpoof and ending up making himself look like an idiot and having no replies)

brock is trying to claim that certain events such as evolution and tectonic movement can all be done over a short amount of time. evolution really is misunderstood by probably over 90% of teh worlds population. evolution is an incredibly alrge scale thing and tehre are many levels of it.

there is low level evolution, such as colour, senses, fur lenght, body size, etc. these things can change very quickly. however waht cant change quickly is body structure. although they may look similar, the physical structure of a sabretooth tiger is incredibly different to that of, say, a persian cat. that sort of evolution takes much more than a few generations. that sort of evolution takes much more than 10 000 years or however long beleievers think teh world as we know it has been around. the cats are jsut a small one though, look at more distinctive species like reptiles, which vary even greater. this is still keping to lower level evolution than most of teh evolution that has created our world.

but if those issues are brought up thenw e can discuss them more tehre are more thigns to come indeed.

insects. they have alrgely been neglected. insects are a very different case for these arguements for lots of insects like ants, there are not males and females, there are very complex social orders that cannot surive wihtout precise environments.
tehre are so many types on insects its almsot unbelievable. most insects also dont live for 40 days so they dhave to be breeding and stuff on the boat.

oh yer you said noah would have supplies, but over 40 days, an ark's worth of animals would eat more than an arc's worht of food so youd need to review all your calculations.

some insects would have been on animals, but thats negligable in the whole scheme of it all.

anyway ive made a few points on evolution im rather restless and hungry atm so ill keep going and other topics can be adressed when they come.

tectonic movment, as was mentioned, cannot occur over a short period of time. the earth was one thing, millions and millions of years ago. IF the flood theory was based back then, it would have a HELL of a lot more evidence supporting it, but christians beleve less than a nhundred thuosand years even is enough.
the earth moves anc changes shape all teh tiem but its very slow. so slow most people cant comprehend it. its such a long and drawn out process that it cannot happen quickly. as said, earthquakes would occur. waves.

do they teach this stuff at school in america? tectonic movement largely requires the slow moving apart of plates, which then buckle of overlap eachother oat one end, but they cant keep going unless they get filled in behind by molten rock. if tectonic plates moved as fast as you can claim, then there would not be a normal earth as we know it, tehre would be huge sectiosn of very plain, very new rock over the centere of waht was poriginally the massive continent. this is no there. there is a very slow, and very old patturn showing of incredibly slow movement. the age of rock and the movement is all recorded in relation to the rock aorund it and tehre is more scientific evidence that the world is fuckin old than fuckin new.

the volcanic rock on top of the mountain is EASILY explained. the mountain was under water once, yes, tectonic movement allows rock from even below our current seabed to move up to a high of a mountian. thats why tehres fossils at certain highs on different mountains. scientists, in many cases not all, have found that the age of teh rock will contain similar samples to otehr ages, even thuogh their height varies greatly. in some cases, there indeed were seas atmountian level. millions of years ago, land levels may have been higher or lower, depending on the pressure of the magma beneath certain areas, and the rest of hte world. parts of australia were once submerged. but also, parts of australia were once very low, and moved up high, with a different situation to simply having a high water level.

oh and when teh flood water was coming down, why did noahs boat not get affected by the torrential rain, as was pointed out, would be incredibly feirce? waht about all the other thuosands of boats?

im sorta rushing i think i hope you can undestand waht im saying

anyway umm as i said before im restless and hungry and im sorta loosing track of waht im saying caus ive come into teh discussion so late.

but a question is: why dont christians have enough faith in their god to jsut assume he used his almighty powers to answer any of the unanswered questions? god was and is apparently , all-powerful. an omnipotent being would surely be able to create the space and resources within the arc to house the animals hed surely be able to then spread the animals around teh world jsut as he gathered them. in fact why the held he even do that? why didnt he jsut make mroe animals? after the 7 days did he loose all creation powrs? why not create a ledge above the flood that they could live on? why not leave a protion of the earth unflooded for the animals to live while teh rest of teh world was underwater. he can do it, jsut liek teh waters parted for moses.

cant he?

*evil and non-beleiverishly*
or was he jsut ahving fun killing off the world because they were meany poos and didnt worship him, and wanted to jsut give noah a little help caus his wife was hot?

[bandit28]

Here is an idea, when you die, right before God judges you, you can ask Him. Perhaps He will give you an answer before sending you to hell. Anyways, I gave all the answers in a quite lenghty post. As a matter of fact, it was a few days before any other non believers figured out what to say in their reply.

[StonerBill]

lol talk about being full of yourself. have you thought maybe people jsut werent sitting at teh forums waiting for your reply? from waht i see, relies have been pretty consistant the whole teim trhough. maybe poeple just couldnt be bothered responding to your arrogance? hell at least when i use arrogance ill accept poeples responses. your jsut dumb who has used an old and outdated boring argument technique most popular by those who want to win quickly to avoid further discussion, which is always inevitable. for teh best argument is one that has not been rushed.

anyway god isnt allowed to send me to hell if i ask for forgiveness.

heres an idea, when you die.. oh guess waht you dont get to ask jack shit, your forgotten, as everyone is eventually, and you cant even experience or percieve your death. oh but that jsut cant be true, because you cant comprehend such nothingness and of course everyhting in your universe can be rationalised and understood by you because it was obviosuly made jsut for you to live in for a few decades jsut for fun before going somewhere else for eternity.

[Brocktoon]

Until now, This discussion was not going in circles.
In fact, we had pretty much agreed that:
yes, the evidence is overwhelming that massive floods have occured in several if not all regions of the Earth.

We have not agreed if this happened during one year (largely) or over milleniums.

This is a tremendous difference from just 30 years ago when it was one side denying any floods happened vs. a worldwide one.

I would not 'rub it in the face' of Genesis Critics [that they have been forced to concede and in some cases admit they were wrong] if it were not for the fact they have tried to 'Plea Bargain' and 'rub that in the face' of us Pro-Genesis people!

Another example would be the Rocky Mountain Seashells.
20 years ago anti-Genesis people taunted Genesis believers to 'Prove it!"

Genesis folks climbed high to the peaks of the Rocky Mountains and found Seashells and fossilised marine life everywhere.
Then.
The Critics had to 'think fast' and proceeded to teach (cover-up better word) that .. oh..."Yes.. Um... these were 'lake beds' and then the Mountains Grew afterwards with the shells still sitting on the face of them.
But...
Somewhere in the last 10 years they had no choice (based on landslides of logic and science) to ADMIT this was false, what they taught as 'Fact' to an entire generation of kids was WRONG.

Without a 'peep' they now teach that the Mountains were virtually underwater up to the peaks.
Giant Lakes ya.

Dont worry, you didnt 'miss anything' because this dramatic and astonishing admission of failure, and admission that Creationist were the ones scientifically advanced was NEVER SPOKEN ABOUT Publicly.

They just sorta 'switched that in the textbooks' while no one was looking and pretended like "Of course we always knew that"

And now they are doing it again.. pretending like 'They are informing Creationists" about the Black Sea Region being deluged.

Even pretending they are the ones 'Explaining it"

Run Evolutionist run.. you intellectual cowards!

LOL.. Too much coffee in Old Brocktoon this morn, folks hehe

[mother_nature's_son]

We have not agreed if this happened during one year (largely) or over milleniums.

This is a tremendous difference from just 30 years ago when it was one side denying any floods happened vs. a worldwide one.Please don't be dishonest Brock. Evolutionary geologists have been associating ice ages with floods as long as ice ages have been known about, since the 1800's.

Another example would be the Rocky Mountain Seashells.

Genesis folks climbed high to the peaks of the Rocky Mountains and found Seashells and fossilised marine life everywhere.
Then.
The Critics had to 'think fast' and proceeded to teach (cover-up better word) that .. oh..."Yes.. Um... these were 'lake beds' and then the Mountains Grew afterwards with the shells still sitting on the face of them.
But...
Somewhere in the last 10 years they had no choice (based on landslides of logic and science) to ADMIT this was false, what they taught as 'Fact' to an entire generation of kids was WRONG.
Brock, sea shells and other marine life have been around for well over 500,000,000 years.
The Rocky Mountains had hundreds of millions of years to form after these sea shells were fossilized.

Remember tectonic plates?
Let's be conservative and say that the plates which created the Rockies were only moving two inches per year (4 inches combined).

500,000,000 years x 4 inches per year = 2 billion inches = over 150,000,000 feet!

Of course the highest point in the Rockies is not even above 15,000 feet.

As numbers show, it would be entirely possible that the Rocky mountains came about after fossilized sea shells.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/Fig21contcont.gif


And now they are doing it again.. pretending like 'They are informing Creationists" about the Black Sea Region being deluged.

Even pretending they are the ones 'Explaining it"
Of course they are informing the creationists of the Black Sea flood,
Evolutionists are the ones leading the most advanced research on it.

[Brocktoon]

We informed you that the basin was under a massive deluge.

Science then informed you this is beyond a doubt.

Now you know.

Period.

Glad to see you admit that Creationists were right about that one.

[StonerBill]

get abck to some of teh issues i raised at some point please brock?

[Brocktoon]

StonerBill,

Sorry but you are not up to the discussion. Good luck next year anyhow.

I just wanted to touch on MNS's explanations for the marine life fossil and shells at the peak of the Rockies.

The Uplift theory is eliminated because erosion (an known observable phenominon) makes it impossible for any peaks to still exist after 500 Million Years.

(in fact, the rocky mountains and everything else on earth would be flat by now)

The same people now concede that the Valleys between the mountains were actually filled with water (SuperLakes)

If you can explain why erosion did not happen for millions of years - then you can go back to holding the Uplift Explanation for the Seashells and Marine Fossil at some of the highest peaks on Earth.

[mother_nature's_son]

I just wanted to touch on MNS's explanations for the marine life fossil and shells at the peak of the Rockies.

The Uplift theory is eliminated because erosion (an known observable phenominon) makes it impossible for any peaks to still exist after 500 Million Years.Well, first off, the Rocky Mountains are not 500 million years old. What I explained in my previous post was that the Rockies had a tremendous window of opportunity to come into existence after fossilized seashells. The Rockies are thought to have done most of their rising up in the period between 70 and 30 million years ago.

The same people now concede that the Valleys between the mountains were actually filled with water (SuperLakes).

If you can explain why erosion did not happen for millions of years - then you can go back to holding the Uplift Explanation for the Seashells and Marine Fossil at some of the highest peaks on Earth.Allow me to explain.

After the Rocky mountains reached a substantial height (higher than they are today), part of western North America started to stretch, and much of the southwestern part of the high mountain plateau started to get broken up into ranges with basins in between them. This area is now called the Basin and Range Province.

Basins not only greatly elude erosion, but they gather material that erodes off of surrounding peaks. We also know that basins are prime locations for lakes, or, as you refered to them in this instance- Superlakes.

[Brocktoon]

I agree that has been the traditional theory.


The seashells and Marine life are found at the peaks.

The latest way to 'plea bargain' has been to suggest the 'Superlakes' Rose so high that at points they flooded over the tops of the Rocky (and Cascadia) Mountains.

So, there is a point of agreement again.
Its agreed that even the highest points of North America have been flooded.

Again.. Some saying this happened 'Locally' at a different time than other massive, yet local floods.

[StonerBill]

you never like to give explinations for your oppinons and palming off do you?

[mother_nature's_son]

The seashells and Marine life are found at the peaks.I don't believe you. Show me. Offer a link.

Its agreed that even the highest points of North America have been flooded.
No this is not agreed.

[campbell34]

I don't believe you. Show me. Offer a link.


No this is not agreed.
Im not talking sea shells, but I have learned they have discovered pillar lava on mount Ararat,and it has been found from the top of the mountain down. Pillar lava is formed when a volcanic vent is surmerged below water. Mt. Ararat is about 17,700 feet high.

[StonerBill]

Can we see a picture of these pillars? most lava pillars take longer than 40 days to form i think

[Brocktoon]

I don't believe you. Show me. Offer a link.

You can google search 'Burgess Shale' as a specific one.
http://www.scienceweb.org/burgess/bintro.html

There are a number of others too but I cant recall the specific names sorry.

That particular site has not been corrected to fit with the new 'SuperLake' means of explaining the marine fossils.
(They are still touting the former seabed theory .. now apparently discarded.
You will have to ask Evolutionists exactly why but i suspect its the highly embarrassing 'Erosion Oversight')

No this is not agreed.
Yes, You and Evolutionists now agree that there were 'SuperLakes' [meaning water right?] and those Superlakes of water which completely submerged the 'Basins' of NorthWest North American had (at some point) risen to the Peaks of the Mountains.

[mother_nature's_son]

Yes, You and Evolutionists now agree that there were 'SuperLakes' [meaning water right?] and those Superlakes of water which completely submerged the 'Basins' of NorthWest North American had (at some point) risen to the Peaks of the Mountains.
The Burgess Shale fossil site occurs at elevation 7,500 feet, within the Stephen Formation in Burgess Pass on the southwest side of the saddle between Mount Wapta and Mount Field.

Mount Wapta stands at 9,115 feet; Mount Field at 8,672 feet.

Burgess Shale is over 1,000 feet below the nearest peaks.

It is entirely possible that plate tectonics lifted these fossils into their present location. You should also know that they were discovered because they were partially eroded and exposed.

I have seen no explanation that includes Superlakes in any of the links I have visited. Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock...

[Brocktoon]

Lets just review your lilting last paragraph. (You would probably add "Shall we?")

You seem to know enough of the SuperLake theory that you had tried to 'Teach' it back to me several posts earlier.

Unfortunately you did not see anything about Superlakes in any of the links you have visited.

[Note: Just a post earlier you did not 'believe me' there were marine fossils at the peaks of the Rocky Mountains]

Even though you never heard of the Burgess Shale fossils and even though Superlake theory is a new 'pet theory' of your evolutionists you once again feel you should pretend the you are the teacher and instructor and advise me:

"Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock..."

MHS - I am the backup.

Btw.. nice big fake attempt to 'Instruct me' on the Burgess Shale you half-wit.
You just hoped know one would notice YOU believed they were fictional just 2 posts earlier, yet expect me to believe you are not intructing me on "What I should know"

(Now watch this next part because its hilarious)

Burgess Shale fossils are no more exposed by erosion than one would expect after a few thousand years.
Unfortunately your tectonic plate theory is really screwed when this erosion is measured.
(although Im sure erosion only began 5,000 years ago according to your Evolutionist buddies)

You have to build a new explanation now - Lakes must have filled the basins to this 7,500 ft level.
(btw.. since water has a tendency to 'stay level' then the implications are far reaching here)

Don't ask me to explain a chicken-out theory evolutionists have anyway.
Scientificaly speaking the only thing we do know is that these areas were once under water.

Only an Evolutionist would rather believe the Mountains were flat instead of admitting water was high.

[mother_nature's_son]

Thank you for your summary, Brock.
Though it's too bad you still havent given any REAL backing for your arguments...

You seem to know enough of the SuperLake theory that you had tried to 'Teach' it back to me several posts earlier.Yes Brock, I tried to clarify our understanding of the theory. And no, I have not heard of this theory anywhere else (and you have still yet to help me out with that).


[Note: Just a post earlier you did not 'believe me' there were marine fossils at the peaks of the Rocky Mountains]Why should I trust your word? You still speak of these fossils being at 'the peaks of the Rockies', when they are actually in Burgess Pass -over 1,000 feet below the peaks.

You have yet to back up any of your information with credible sources.

Even though you never heard of the Burgess Shale fossils...I actually have heard of the Burgess Shale fossils, I once cited them as evidence of pre-athropods.

"Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock..."

MHS - I am the backup.
o....k....

Ill just pretend I didn't read that...

You just hoped know one would notice YOU believed they were fictional just 2 posts earlier, yet expect me to believe you are not intructing me on "What I should know"No, I never thought they were fictional. As I explained, I didn't trust your word on their location -rightfully so-.

Burgess Shale fossils are no more exposed by erosion than one would expect after a few thousand years.
Unfortunately your tectonic plate theory is really screwed when this erosion is measured.
(although Im sure erosion only began 5,000 years ago according to your Evolutionist buddies)
Exactly, the fossils were deeper inside the mountain, protected from erosion, until fairly recently (in geologic time). Why is this so unbelieveable? Tell me. Why?

Only an Evolutionist would rather believe the Mountains were flat instead of admitting water was high.
Please, look at this diagram-


http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/Fig21contcont.gif

[Brocktoon]

Your splitting hairs and playing legalism games MNS.
Marine fossils 85% of the way up the highest mountains in the world and your little trick is to play word games "Over" 1000 feet from the 'Peak'.

Well presumably not much rests on the highest points for long.

I have seen the location and anyone with a pick can break shale and find marine fossils.

Just like your 'Plea Bargaining' over other floods - you have to play word games and 'explain' what 1/20th of the glass is empty (as if you discovered it)

I have looked at your embarrassing diagram.

Yes, its very colourful and has 'Motion Arrows' (therefore it must be real?).

Please back up your theory by explaining away Erosion.

Presumably you believe that Erosion 'Evolved' and did not exist for 30 million years?
You can 'Back up' you disbanded theory to me, thanks.

[mother_nature's_son]

Please back up your theory by explaining away Erosion.


Presumably you believe that Erosion 'Evolved' and did not exist for 30 million years?
The fossils were further inside the mountain and were not directly affected by erosion until recently. This is possible because of plate tectonics -a proven mechanism-.

What is happening in this case, is that the Rockies are being stretched, thus the surface area of the mountains is expanding, and new -previously concealed- rocks are emerging to fill the new spaces.

Imagine if the mountains kept stretching until they became flat. The entire substance of these gigantic collections of earth would be laid out- able to be seen.

As mountains stretch, more and more of their substance becomes visible.

You can 'Back up' you disbanded theory to me, thanks.
I have no reason to believe this theory has been disbanded.

Also, a mountain peak and a mountain pass are two very different things my friend. Especially in regard to geology.

[bandit28]

MNS, this is what I see from your posts. The earths surface was basicly flat at somepoint in time where no mountains existed. Then, with your plate tectonics mountains were created. Now you are talking about how mountains are slowly reversing in size because slowly but surely they are flatening out again. Yup, go back and read your posts. In your attempts to be a "smart young lad" you goofed up and said to much crap.

One thing you keep forgetting. You can't proove anything did or didn't happen thousands of years ago. Nor can I. I go off of a strong faith in my God and from archeological findings. You go from theories and a science created by my God. Is there any way that you could proove that all of the land mass was not connected at some point in time? No you can't. Also, I find it difficult to understand how you think so many things could happen without a creator(like life begining, land being formed, gras growing from nothing at all) and yet still put limitations on what this earth could or could not handle. You say that the earth did not have enough water to be able to be flooded entirely. I say how can you proove this. It happened some 5,000 years ago. You see where your beliefs are putting restrictions on things? This is what so confuses me about people like you. You think we came from some omeba that formed from nothing. And this omeba split up in so many different ways, multiplied itself millions of times, and bam, life on earth. So what created earth?

How about we just do this. You keep believing that nothing is possible unless you can duplicate it in a lab, I'll keep having faith in God. When we die, we will see who is right.

[Brocktoon]

For the record, the Shale on the side of the mountains is not deep inside the mountains.

It all but on the surface.
If you are up there.. you will be well aware you are on top of a mountain.

Having said all that.
The commonly held theory is that an Ice Age pushed Glaciers over this region.
Eventually the Glaciers melted and naturally left massive Superlakes between the Mountains.

This is now used to explain how marine life is at the highest peaks.

I can't believe a 'Old Age' geology student would not know this is the current excuse for marine fossils at the highest of locations.
Its not my theory anyway so Im not going to try and justify it.

One thing we DO KNOW is that marine life will be washed up on the sides of Mountains by a huge flood.
That is one obvious option.

But .. then again. .probably not for a Genesis denier. They MUST pick any and all other options.

:P

[mother_nature's_son]

MNS, this is what I see from your posts. The earths surface was basicly flat at somepoint in time where no mountains existed. Then, with your plate tectonics mountains were created. Now you are talking about how mountains are slowly reversing in size because slowly but surely they are flatening out again. Yup, go back and read your posts. In your attempts to be a "smart young lad" you goofed up and said to much crap.
Bandit, go back and read my post.

"What is happening in this case, is that the Rockies are being stretched..."

Each mountain range is affected by unique tectonic conditions. Not all mountians are flattening out.

My mention of a mountian range flattening out completely was an illustrative supposition, a mental image to better understand the concept of what happens when the Rockies stretch.

You say that the earth did not have enough water to be able to be flooded entirely. I say how can you proove this. It happened some 5,000 years ago. You see where your beliefs are putting restrictions on things?
Water recycles itself here on earth. The water that existed 5,000 years ago is still here today, and it can be measured. It is not, and was not, enough to completely flood the continents.

This is what so confuses me about people like you. You think we came from some omeba that formed from nothing. And this omeba split up in so many different ways, multiplied itself millions of times, and bam, life on earth. So what created earth?
Oembas would not come from nothing. They are a chemistry of organic matter.

What created Earth? I guess the simple answer would be accretion: electromagnetic attraction and gravity.

How about we just do this. You keep believing that nothing is possible unless you can duplicate it in a lab, I'll keep having faith in God. When we die, we will see who is right.
Good deal :p

[mother_nature's_son]

For the record, the Shale on the side of the mountains is not deep inside the mountains.

It all but on the surface.
If you are up there.. you will be well aware you are on top of a mountain.
Brock, brother, this really shouldnt be so difficult.

I previously explained-

"Exactly, the fossils were deeper inside the mountain, protected from erosion, until fairly recently (in geologic time)."

"The fossils were further inside the mountain and were not directly affected by erosion until recently. This is possible because of plate tectonics -a proven mechanism-."

I can't believe a 'Old Age' geology student would not know this is the current excuse for marine fossils at the highest of locations.
Its not my theory anyway so Im not going to try and justify it.
I am not a geology student... yet.

All Im asking for is a link. Where did YOU get this information?

One thing we DO KNOW is that marine life will be washed up on the sides of Mountains by a huge flood.
That is one obvious option.
Brock, this doesn't work.
These marine creatures would need to be rapidly buried in sediment to fossilize, because many did not have skeletons (and there were a great number of creatures buried together). Rapid burial does not happen on a slope. Mud flows covered the creatures and deposited them in deep waters where decay is limited and slow. It was after their burial and fossilization that tectonic movement transported these specimens to where they can be seen today.

[Brocktoon]

You often make hypothesis and back it up with conjecture you know?


You just state (out of your own imagination) that marine life would not be in sediment (Im guessing you see the mud sliding down hill in your imagination?)
on the side of the mountain.

Then you seem to 'explain' this theory 'as if' it were proof in inself.

Another example is you believe the fossils were deep inside the mountain and later pushed out and exposed by erosion.
You cite your theory as if it is evidence or demonstration of your theory?

The Shale is on the side of the mountain.
I guaruntee you this.
Ive been there.
I am the link to the information.

You keep pretending your theory the fossils were once deep inside the mountain as an 'explanation'.
No.
You are just imagining that it must have been that way.

The main thing is this - we DO AGREE that the mountains are being uplifted by continental drift.
YOU have the problem trying to reconcile your outrageous old-age times with the evidence.
Genesis has no problem at all making its numbers work.

You better trying and create an explanation for the lack of erosion for 30 million years or those fossils were left there by floods.
Most of your buddies have abandoned the 'once a seabed' theory because scientific facts forced them too.

[mother_nature's_son]

You just state (out of your own imagination) that marine life would not be in sediment (Im guessing you see the mud sliding down hill in your imagination?) on the side of the mountain.

Then you seem to 'explain' this theory 'as if' it were proof in inself.Brock, allow me to do something that you have not done throughout this entire discussion (even though it has been asked of you repeatedly)-
[watch this..lol.]

"Following periodic mud slumps Burgess Shale organisms were transported downslope and deposited into anoxic waters..."
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/burgessshale/pres.html

"The animals were preserved after the sediments where they lived failed and
flowed down the slope; there may have been more than 50 flows."
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1366/burgess.html


"The Burgess Shale was deposited at the base of this cliff..."
http://tabla.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/

My imagination huh?

Another example is you believe the fossils were deep inside the mountain and later pushed out and exposed by erosion.
You cite your theory as if it is evidence or demonstration of your theory?

The Shale is on the side of the mountain.
I guaruntee you this.
Ive been there.
I am the link to the information.Yes Brock, clearly the fossils are now exposed on the side of the mountain, but it hasn't always been this way. And I will explain how this could be so.

The main thing is this - we DO AGREE that the mountains are being uplifted by continental drift.
YOU have the problem trying to reconcile your outrageous old-age times with the evidence.
Genesis has no problem at all making its numbers work.

You better trying and create an explanation for the lack of erosion for 30 million years or those fossils were left there by floods.Ok, lets start with this premise. Burgess Shale is 30 million years old.

Right. As my links show us, these fossils were preserved by mud slides. The mud slides which trapped these creatures were not the last mud slides to occur at the base of this slope. Over time, the Burgess shale fossils were buried deeper and deeper within sediment (perhaps the upper layers also contained fossils, but have since been eroded away). By the time conditions changed and the shale was actually out of water and suseptible to erosion (likely millions of years later), the fossils we see today were protected under many other layers of rock. It would then take a great deal of time for erosion to work through these upper layers. This whole process easily could have taken 30 million years.

Most of your buddies have abandoned the 'once a seabed' theory because scientific facts forced them too.Brock, to be honest with you, it is quite frustrating to me that you make such claims with ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT.

I have searched the internet and found NOTHING about evolutionists abandoning the seabed theory. NOTHING!

I have heard of absolutely no scientific facts that could cause this either.

WHERE ARE THESE 'FACTS' BROCK? WHERE ARE THE LINKS? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?

[Brocktoon]

Do you realise that you keep citing the theory as 'proof' of the theory?

do you?

No, you do not. You continue to suggest the theory of the million year old mudslides by QUOTING THE THEORY ITSELF "AS IF" IT "EXPLAINED" TO US THE THEORY IS VALID!?

Please stop doing that.

Also, YOU can provide me with Proof.
Unfortunately your 'Facts' are nothing more than the theory itself presented in 'Instructional' Formatting.

Not cool MNS. Not cool at all.

[mother_nature's_son]

Ok Brock, you are not contributing any new information to the discussion. You do not directly address or refute any of my well-made points that I back up with multiple sources.

You CANNOT possibly deny that mudslides were what preserved these fossils because that's what every website on the subject agrees with.

-Excellent preservation of soft parts in these marine creatures requires rapid burial.

-Lack of scavenging and decay requires rapid burial.

"Through additional work on the site, it was determined that the Burgess Shale included multiple fossil bearing layers of about 2 meters thick stacked 150 meters high and over 60,000 unique fossils have been found." Perfect model for mud slides!
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

"Fossils are therefore found in random orientation, indicative of a violent mudslide engulfing many of the Cambrian organisms. There is also evidence that these organisms died instantly. First, in the presence of an anaerobic environment, such as mud, marine invertebrates normally curl up upon dying. Fossils of the Burgess Shale locality do not exhibit this coiling. Secondly, there is no evidence of any attempt by these organisms to burrow out of their mud "prison." Killed instantly by the mudslides, preservation began immediately."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

You provide NO information to the contrary.
There is no alternative.

[Brocktoon]

Again, you keep citing some Evolutionist theory as 'A backup' or ' a source'.


The funny part of this.. you are conceding more to Genesis than you know.

Your arguing that marine life was trapped in sediment. Ok. Good. I agree and so do the facts.

As far as contributing to this discussion, your welcome.
You have been educated here.

Just taking information supplied to you and then pretending you are the one 'teaching it back' to me does not 'make it so'.

Thanks for admitting marine life fossils are found at 7,000 ft elevations.
Glad you are willing to concede that fossils are made from lifeforms encased in sediment (mud).
Your also willing to accept that (at some point) most of the Pacific NorthWest has been underwater.
..and you agree that evidence is overwhelming the Black Sea region of Earth has been deluged.

I have no doubt there are thousands of Evolutionists scrambling to 'Explain away' these facts.
They count on gullible students to accept their 'hypothesising' excuses as 'Back Up' or 'Research' but its not.

Citing a theory that the Rockies were a flat seabed IS the debate, not an 'Evidence' just because someone told you it 'was so'.

Just out of curiousity - why do you figure there are now extint lifeforms encased in sediment all over the Earth (incl at high mountainous altitudes like the ones YOU were informed of recently)
?

[mother_nature's_son]

Again, you keep citing some Evolutionist theory as 'A backup' or ' a source'.And you cite a creationist theory without any backup or source!

Your arguing that marine life was trapped in sediment. Ok. Good. I agree and so do the facts.I dont have to argue that marine life was trapped in sediment, this is entirely obvious.
I also don't have to argue that these creatures were trapped in a mudslide; with enough investigation of the fossils, this is entirely obvious as well.

As far as contributing to this discussion, your welcome.
You have been educated here.You have not contributed a single link or bit of cited information. How you can think you are putting up an argument from this position, I truly do not understand.

An yes, I have been educated by information gathered by real geologists.

Glad you are willing to concede that fossils are made from lifeforms encased in sediment (mud).lol. Gee, thats really a tough one to admit there.

I have no doubt there are thousands of Evolutionists scrambling to 'Explain away' these facts.As our discussion here shows, evolutionists have a much easier time explaining these facts than creationists. That's why you can't come up with any links or sources that support your view!

Citing a theory that the Rockies were a flat seabed IS the debate, not an 'Evidence' just because someone told you it 'was so'.[QUOTE=Brocktoon]

Argue, right now, that the Rockies were NOT once a flat seabed.

PLEASE, I beg of you.

[QUOTE=Brocktoon]Just out of curiousity - why do you figure there are now extint lifeforms encased in sediment all over the Earth (incl at high mountainous altitudes like the ones YOU were informed of recently)
?Lifeforms have been living and dying upon this earth for millions upon millions of years and occasionally the requirements for preservation are met upon (or cause- as is the case here) death.

As far as the mountains- plate tectonics.

[Brocktoon]

Let me know what you think of Walt Browns HydroPlate theory?


(btw Walter Brown is a 'real' geologist in case you want to be smart)

http://www.creationscience.com/

Of course its not perfect, but it goes a lot further to explain the Earth than evolutionistscience has imo.

For the record, everyone believes the Rockies are being pushed up.
This is because the Earth is dividing.
Genesis told YOU that btw.

[StonerBill]

I think a point that has been missed is that in order for a worldwide flood to cause the effects brock is claiming, it would have to be around for a lot longer than 40 days or wahtever. it woul dhave to be around for thousands of years. longer even.


Both of you adress this NOW!

[Brocktoon]

Hi StonerBill!


Oh yes.. MNS and Myself were both present at that time but we didnt see you there. Must have just missed ya?

Maybe you should explain further how and why it would take more than 40 days for the flood waters to subside (at least.. as low as the Ararat Mountain Range anyway)?

Thanks

[StonerBill]

No, thats waht you need to explain, its your flood.

[JesusDiedForU]

No, thats waht you need to explain, its your flood.
I'm sure the same God that parted the Red Sea can make the water of the flood subside after 40 days. People seem to replace God with science and say well through science that does not fit. But you must understand through God anything is possible.

[mother_nature's_son]

Tremendous amounts of water rising from inside the Earth and thus flooding the continents is what creationists (Including Walter Brown) claim...

Not only would this water contain deadly gases, but it would have been very, very hot - the world would not have drowned, it (along with Noah and his floating zoo) would have been steamed.

The earth gets hotter by about 25 degrees C for every kilometer of depth. Brown claiming water came from 10 miles = 16 km down would have been at about 400 degrees C (over 700 F).

Let me know what you think of Walt Browns HydroPlate theory?

(btw Walter Brown is a 'real' geologist in case you want to be smart)
Well, first of all, Walt Brown is definitely not a 'real geologist'- he is a mechanical engineer! His own website fails to mention him having any degrees or credentials in geology.

Reflecting Brown's poor qualifications in the geology field, his 'hydroplate theory' can be, and has been, extensively refuted by real, yes real, educated geologists. This is largely a result of Brown basing his theory on misunderstandings of known geologic processes. But hey, the guy isn't even a geologist, what can you expect?
-3 sites demonstrating this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/tim_thompson/brown.html
http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/pflood.htm
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsolum/yec/earthquakes.html

Brown refuses to debate:

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm


For the record, everyone believes the Rockies are being pushed up.
This is because the Earth is dividing.
Genesis told YOU that btw.
For the record- the Rockies were being pushed up (they are actually stretching now).

The Earth is dividing? What exactly do you mean by that? Continents are dividing? What exactly does Genesis say?

[Brocktoon]

No, I dont agree with your theory that the water would be as hot as you suggest.

Brown does have the following credentials and since he is an expert on the Earths Geology and is teaching new things to those with 'official' Geology degrees - I think we are cool to describe him as such.

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood.

BTW, A Mechanical Engineer and expert in Physics is just as qualified to research this field (if not more so) as a 'Geologist'. Thanks.

Brown LOVES debating Scientists who still believe / promote Old-Earth Evolutionism. Generally speaking, Evolutionists get their arses handed back to them in debates with Brown and write big apologetic arguments claiming they were 'Tricked' into losing.
I suspect he has so many debates scheduled he must turn down dozens.

Thanks for the links criticising Browns theory. I had read them already and see some valid (and many false) critisisms.
All the same, it remains the 'best we have' so far.

[mother_nature's_son]

No, I dont agree with your theory that the water would be as hot as you suggest.Would you like to tell me why?

Brown does have the following credentials and since he is an expert on the Earths Geology and is teaching new things to those with 'official' Geology degrees - I think we are cool to describe him as such.Absolutely not. While Brown's influence can be debated, his qualifications cannot. Brown is not an expert geologist- one would need to actually get a degree in the field by which are they labeled an 'expert'. An advanced degree at that.

BTW, A Mechanical Engineer and expert in Physics is just as qualified to research this field (if not more so) as a 'Geologist'. Thanks.Brown is not qualified because he has not extensively studied the intricacies of this field, by which his hydroplate model must, but does not, operate. Brown does not understand the details of geology. His mechanics and physics gives him the concept of 'hydroplates', but earth's geology does not support this.

Brown theorized hydroplates before learning -less than a credentials worth- about geology. His method is backwards.

Brown LOVES debating Scientists who still believe / promote Old-Earth Evolutionism. Generally speaking, Evolutionists get their arses handed back to them in debates with Brown and write big apologetic arguments claiming they were 'Tricked' into losing.
I suspect he has so many debates scheduled he must turn down dozens.If you actually read the link, you will see that Brown initially agreed to the debate and then backed out.

Thanks for the links criticising Browns theory. I had read them already and see some valid (and many false) critisisms.
All the same, it remains the 'best we have' so far.Yea, those guys that don't have degrees in the field they are researching sure have the upper hand...

[matthew]

I just thought the Noahs ark story was about 'the body of christ' with all of creation outpouring from him...


Why are people looking for it anyway..its clearly a load of tosh..unless you believe the one about Noah only being able to collect the animals within a day or so of his home...mmmm again tosh.

Just think of the logistics and the scale of the boat required. and the billions of life on this planet.... utter tosh.

[Brocktoon]

Matthew,
Your entire post was utter tosh. Please learn about things like 'Science' and 'Reading Scriptures' before posting more tosh.

Thanks

[Genesis]

Genesis has no problem at all making its numbers work.

.

he's right you know. i don't.:cool:

[StonerBill]

I'm sure the same God that parted the Red Sea can make the water of the flood subside after 40 days. People seem to replace God with science and say well through science that does not fit. But you must understand through God anything is possible.
this theory doesnt apply here caus brock isnt a strong a christian as that



anyway umm you skipped over the point again, that water would require many thousands of years to do the work that is claimed here by brock, and according to the creation theory, the water did not take thousands of years to subside, and if it did, then there would be a perfectly linear spread of hydro-erosion and weatehring from the highest peaks of the earth to the lowest.

Stop skipping the points raised.

And stop disputing points wihtout backup, Mr I-dont-agree-with-the-water-temperature-and-i-might-jsut-ignore-the-point-about-the-water-being-toxic-and-hope-they-forget

[Brocktoon]

StonerBill... Since no one was there at the time, we can only rely on sensible forensics to 'look back' on what the Earth must have been like before and during the World-wide flood.

One thing we do not need to assume is that the waters would take thousands of years to subside.

Certainly a whole lot of water is still here, but locked up in Glaciers and permafrost on both the Poles.

Otherwise, we are looking at most of the earth still underwater. (what is it - 70%?)

We dont really know how long it took for all the water to subside - we do know that enough subsided soon enough for the Ark to rest on Mount Ararat. Its entirely possible that other areas were still flooded.

While it does not say so explicitly - we can safely assume that all kinds of major cataclysms and earth changing events were 'spinning off' the Flood long afterwards.

I dont agree with the temperatures MNSons evolutionists theorisors came up with because I cant see why the Earth would be the same today as it was then.
In other words.. I would not be wise to assume my Radiator temperature was the same before it ran out of water , as it would be if the water was still in it.

I dont mean to ignore your posts Stonerbill... its just that you are Australian, probably stoned most of the time and probably under the age of 16 - so its hard to take you seriously.

[JesusDiedForU]

this theory doesnt apply here caus brock isnt a strong a christian as that



anyway umm you skipped over the point again, that water would require many thousands of years to do the work that is claimed here by brock, and according to the creation theory, the water did not take thousands of years to subside, and if it did, then there would be a perfectly linear spread of hydro-erosion and weatehring from the highest peaks of the earth to the lowest.

Stop skipping the points raised.

And stop disputing points wihtout backup, Mr I-dont-agree-with-the-water-temperature-and-i-might-jsut-ignore-the-point-about-the-water-being-toxic-and-hope-they-forget
Dude.... The flood was an act of God correct? ....He flooded the whole earth.... Know why can't a God that flooded the whole earth then make the water disapear?

The problem here is after the flood you replaced God with science... "Thats not scientifically correct" But God created science.... He is above science. Parting the Red Sea can't be explained by science. But you like to insert science and say that it is not possible according to our abilities.

[JesusDiedForU]

If Noah's ark was discovered would you non-believers... believe?

[Showtime/Redneck-Bud]

"But God created science.... He is above science."

yer opinion, kid... yer opinion...

[JesusDiedForU]

Showtime,

If Noah's ark was discovered would you believe?

[Showtime/Redneck-Bud]

Hmm... probly... if you could prove without a shadow of the doubt and without using the bible as evidence that it was, in fact, Noah's ark...

[JesusDiedForU]

Hmm... probly... if you could prove without a shadow of the doubt and without using the bible as evidence that it was, in fact, Noah's ark...

O.k. like saying the bible sates that the ark was 450 ft long and 75 ft. high ....and that is the measure they found on top of Mt Aarat... you would believe>>?

[Showtime/Redneck-Bud]

mmmm... nah... sorry, but, i don't think that'll convince me...

[Soulless||Chaos]

maybe way back in the day there was some kind of flood, probably caused by climate changes, but people couldn't figure it out so they assumed that some supposed god did it?
proving there was a flood in no way proves the existance of a god...

[campbell34]

maybe way back in the day there was some kind of flood, probably caused by climate changes, but people couldn't figure it out so they assumed that some supposed god did it?
proving there was a flood in no way proves the existance of a god...
If the flood was higher than the highest mountains there would not be any people left. They found pilar lava on top of mount Ararat in turky. Pilar lave only forms when a volcanic vent is underwater. They are finding the lava at the 17,000 foot level. That must of been some flood. Only chance of survival would be in an ark.

[StonerBill]

IF they can prove that the boat contained two of each animal on teh earth, and wasnt jsut a big boat with a few local animals in it, then yes i would be a believer. The basis of the noahs ark story is that everything alive on tehplanet save marine wildlife came form the boat. simply finding a boat is not enough evidence, for i beleive a lot of things in the bible occured, yet were attibuted to god out of human ignorance to science.


and brock, I am in fact 16, and i havnt been stoned for two weeks *cries*
but thats beside the point, your a christian your not meant to judge others.

The warmth of the earth on the inside is one of the reasons our earth supports life. if your earth was a cold rock, the earth's climate would be very different. But msot importantly, If you dont think the earth was hot on the inside, then your creationist theory basing on the lava things on mount ararat are flawed. so youd have to choose between which of those to follow.

And jesusdieforme, if you say the thigns you say, then it removes debate of things alltogether, and would mean that anything could be jsutified by god, and thats simply not feasable, it would create chaos in humanity, very uncivilised lifestyles would occur. Technology has got you where you are because poeple have decided to look into the world instead of jsut atrtributing everything to god. Whyd newton investigate gravity? Caus he questioned the science behind the phenomenom, and didnt jsut assume like everyone else that it was jsut god's will so lets not bother with it.

But i agree, all christians who are trully beleivers shouldnt have discussed it up to this point, bcause they are only denouncing their own faith in god by not beleiveing he could jsut 'make it happen'. Isnt that easy too? attributing everything to an omnipotence and answering all our questions by jsut saying its gods will....*rolls eyes*



And i dont see how being australian should mean im worth less thought, australians have been the most scientifically acheiving nation in the world, with respect to population, age, and economy. Overall if you put the range of australian intelligence next to the range of american intelligence, and factored in populations, and demographic spread, youd find that australians kick american ass ;)

[Soulless||Chaos]

why couldn't other people have boats back then? not to mention if it was cause by climate changes, then it wasn't instantaneous, so people could have prepared. or maybe the mountain was lowr but due to movements in the earths crust grew higher afterwards? of course i'm obviously no expert nor do i realy have any idea what im talking about :rolleyes:, but it is possible... at least as much so as the flood being cause by a god.

[Soulless||Chaos]

Isnt that easy too? attributing everything to an omnipotence and answering all our questions by jsut saying its gods will....*rolls eyes*
as they say, ignorance is bliss... :rolleyes:

[mother_nature's_son]

They found pilar lava on top of mount Ararat in turky. Pilar lave only forms when a volcanic vent is underwater. They are finding the lava at the 17,000 foot level. That must of been some flood. Only chance of survival would be in an ark.
Post #40 on page 4, I asked for more details on this 'pillar lava'. Please expand on your information. Do you perhaps have a link?

[Brocktoon]

I am not familiar with Pillar Lava being found atop Mt.Ararat, although I heard of some kooky rumour along that lines.


Oddly enough, there are ancient Anchor Stones found in that Mountain Range and this is something taken very seriously by researchers.

The Pillar Lava is a new one to me?

[matthew]

Matthew,
Your entire post was utter tosh. Please learn about things like 'Science' and 'Reading Scriptures' before posting more tosh.

ThanksReading scriptures...puzzled , what more should i know ..??

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive. 21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. 22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
http://arksearch.com/nastory.htm he put two by two .. i thought
Well i did learn

Chapter 7 1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth
.. please direct me to the story you think i should read. ??? I would be intrested .

what has science got to do with this anyway... ??? again pleas explain..

I did not want to be rude or dismiss it (okay so i did) please enlighten me.

[Brocktoon]

I stand corrected - only 75% of your post was tosh, ;)


Yes, it is possible that 2 (or 7) of each kind were placed on the Ark.
Regardless of what you may or may not believe really did happen - it is physically possible.

This has been mentioned before but what happens is that the original 'Kind' is carried on to the future environment. i.e. The Grey Wolf. - the natural selection see's that the many subspecies devolve from that original Ark Refugee animal.

There ya go.

[JesusDiedForU]

the story of noah's ark is actually an ancient Sumerian myth that was borrowed by the Hebrews...it would only prove the validity of the Sumerian myths
You watch to much history channel were they try to pass everything in the Bible as a myth or another myth.

[Brocktoon]

Hehe... Yep I know exactly what you mean. 'Mysteries of the Bible' from A&E was another example of sheer propaganda from the 'Jesus Seminar' ultra liberal/heretical types.

Its always packaged in this smarmy attitude of "hey.. we are being unbiased is all".
They count on the fact that most people dont realise they are watching a highly tuned and specifically pointed propaganda wanting to fake them out.

Example being this 'Sumerian Myth' allegedly behind the Ark Story.

What they do not tell the viewers is this - IF the flood happened, then we absolutely should expect many ancient peoples to have Flood Stories too.

(Now watch this logically) Just because we in 2004 find a 'Flood Account' which is written before Moses account - does not therefore mean one comes from the other.

It just so happens we found that cultures account and nothing more.
Presumably The Jews had their own account too, even though it was a few years before Moses penned the Official Account.

The point is - these Gnostic Propaganda bible documentries on History Channel or A&E count on the fact that people like Chief CowPie wont 'think through' that bit.

[JesusDiedForU]

exactly what I was thinking brock

[Genesis]

as regards the ark and the animals going two by two.


would it have been one of each species and relation?


i mean a lot of things evolve and such so would that mean that the amount of animals we hold in our heads is actuall 10 times more then what were carried on the ark itself if it did exist?

im not much in the way of evolution and stuff but i assume a lot of animals now wern't in existance back then or hadnt evolved[or is it devolved] as such depending on how long ago the flood hapened.


i mean you have felines and you have all the other species. could it be possible they all didn't evolve[devolve?] until after the coming of the flood?

or is that just madness?

[StonerBill]

Even if you took away some thousands of years worth of natural selection, then theres still incredible amounts of animals. HEAPS. most evoluion and complex selection is done over many thuosands of years.

[Brocktoon]

Its a little tricky to assume exactly what the Primary Kind of animals were since many of those may have gone extinct since then.


Just as an example.. although people use the example of the 'Grey Wolf' to explain how all other dogs came about - there are many that suspect there was even a 'Higher' Prime animal.
New research is always pouring in but recently it was thought that it may have descended from a sorta 'Hyena' type creature.
Even more recently, Bears are being included in the same 'lineage' as Dogs.
These changes coming about due to recent discovery and mapping of DNA.

Now then, as for three thousand years being 'long enough'? [or too soon]?

Not much of a problem there. It would not take too long for a 'Grey Wolf' pack to see the most colourful ones eliminated in the new Ice Age and the ones with more 'White Genes' to establish themselves.

I suppose we will never know exactly how much genetic variation the original 'Prime' Kinds had - but it certainly was enough that a Grey Wolf has brought us Toy Poodles and Great Danes in just a few centuries.
Four Milleniums is a lot of time when dramatic enviromental changes and 'split offs' are happening.
Just look at the Camel and the Llamma - they have changed quite a bit from their original 'parents'.

Anyway.. there is a new science forming now that will look into (back into) this further.
We should expect a lot of interesting research into the original kinds that began our animal kingdom.

[matthew]

This has been mentioned before but what happens is that the original 'Kind' is carried on to the future environment. i.e. The Grey Wolf. - the natural selection see's that the many subspecies devolve from that original Ark Refugee animal.


This is were 'modern' thinking comes into it..and a cop out. how many species has been calculated that were onboard saying 'your' rationale is right..

I read the story a few times and i still see that it says that ALL the animals on the earth were onboard ... it is technicaly and physicaly impossible.

The two thoughts i spoke of in my first post were told too me to precisly dismiss modern thought... the story is either a analogy or possible because gathering the amount possible in a few days would be enough (i guess) to fill such a 'small' ark. At the time of the writing of this story i am sure the amount of animals conceivable in 'mans' eyes would have filled the ark , but we now are aware that we still have not the full figure of the diverse creatures on this earth..

Then to say the animals de/evolved Bringing in evolution to account for the multitude of animals around ... is clutching at straws.

I mentioned science has nothing to do with it it ...because supposedly god made all animals ... no evolution involved so it just makes a nonsense of it.

You can say the interpretation can be diffrent..but fundementaly the story says all the animals in varying amounts were squeezed onto a boat and sailed for seven days..

Again no offence...tosh.:p

I see from reading back that my points have been raised and and answered ...i just think not all the stories in the bible or from whatever source you wish that accounts for this..it should not be taken literaly..

saying google is one of the best search engines around...the first link 'noahs ark' is so unconvincing and full or religouse spin and downright crap its laughable...a new PR team need to be at work with this whole story.

[Soulless||Chaos]

As long as we're getting into DNA here, anyone read The Seven Daughters of Eve?
Basicaly, people of European descent can geneticaly be traced back to seven original women... i know its off topic, but i think it's interesting. :H

[Brocktoon]

Matthew,
Typical of many critics - you start with 'a little bit of knowledge' and proceed to make a mess of everything as you assume to know it all.

First - Noah takes 2 or 7 of each 'Kind'.
A 'Kind' is established throughout Moses writing and indicates a whole class of animal.
For example there would be Seven Dogs. Not every possible version of dogs.
Another example - the main 'Deer' Kind. Not every version, antelope, caribou, gazelle etc etc.
Yes, its not the same exact way of language we use today but that is how the word 'Kind' was used then.

Now then..

The 'evolution' we are talking about is 'Natural Selection'.
So we are not asking for this 'Prime Deer' to spend millions of years ADDING genetic characteristics.
[Yes, that would be 'Tosh' if that was what I was talking about]

We are looking at exactly the same kind of Natural Selection we see today.
Genetic characteristics are being 'split off' from the 'Prime Kind' of creature.

So, as we see a Toy Poodle and a Great Dane 'Selected' out of the Grey Wolf in just 200 years - So we would see tremendous offshoots from this original 'Kind' put on the Ark.

.....................

Souless... I had heard of this 'Noahs Seven Daughters' but will check it out .. very interesting!
They can now narrow down all human DNA to one woman.. hehe.. researchers have dubbed her 'Eve'.
(I guess they didnt know Noahs Wifes name?)

[matthew]

Matthew,
Typical of many critics - you start with 'a little bit of knowledge' and proceed to make a mess of everything as you assume to know it all.

First - Noah takes 2 or 7 of each 'Kind'.
A 'Kind' is established throughout Moses writing and indicates a whole class of animal.
For example there would be Seven Dogs. Not every possible version of dogs.
Another example - the main 'Deer' Kind. Not every version, antelope, caribou, gazelle etc etc.
Yes, its not the same exact way of language we use today but that is how the word 'Kind' was used then.

Now then..

The 'evolution' we are talking about is 'Natural Selection'.
So we are not asking for this 'Prime Deer' to spend millions of years ADDING genetic characteristics.
[Yes, that would be 'Tosh' if that was what I was talking about]

We are looking at exactly the same kind of Natural Selection we see today.
Genetic characteristics are being 'split off' from the 'Prime Kind' of creature.

So, as we see a Toy Poodle and a Great Dane 'Selected' out of the Grey Wolf in just 200 years - So we would see tremendous offshoots from this original 'Kind' put on the Ark.

.....................

Souless... I had heard of this 'Noahs Seven Daughters' but will check it out .. very interesting!
They can now narrow down all human DNA to one woman.. hehe.. researchers have dubbed her 'Eve'.
(I guess they didnt know Noahs Wifes name?)OK i give you (your) fact that their is not every kind..what was the reason between 2 or 7 unclean and clean 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. why only creatures that crept the earth (i am working from the text in my other post) why not the sea.. if a choice was being made between clean and unclean then why not the creatures of the sea. and rivers etc ??

The 'evolution' we are talking about is 'Natural Selection'.
So we are not asking for this 'Prime Deer' to spend millions of years ADDING genetic characteristics.
[Yes, that would be 'Tosh' if that was what I was talking about]

We are looking at exactly the same kind of Natural Selection we see today.
Genetic characteristics are being 'split off' from the 'Prime Kind' of creature.

So, as we see a Toy Poodle and a Great Dane 'Selected' out of the Grey Wolf in just 200 years - So we would see tremendous offshoots from this original 'Kind' put on the Arkthose of shoots work (maybe) with grey wolf ..but can't you see that its a bit of a stretch to think that noah managed to gather a whole class of animal from the four corners of the globe and from many diffrent continents...just saying he got a few of these and a few of them and hence forth all of creature kind was repopulated... so bears became polar bears , pandas and so on (and the vast amout of others).

Chapter 6 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made themI don't know precisly what was going on 4300 years ago for god to be so mad...but i am quite sure that we have done worse since...i can't see the significance of 4300 years ago..only that that may be how far certain religous history can go..

The whole thing rests on that a 600 year old man managed to convince god to spare land creatures to survive his wrath because of some 'crime' . The 600 year old man having a little chat with god is enough to make me think twice.
If you give this wild story to another group of people still the problems remain.. if only one group of humans were on board then surely the whole of human kind could not have evolved from that group of people..


As long as we're getting into DNA here, anyone read The Seven Daughters of Eve?
Basicaly, people of European descent can geneticaly be traced back to seven original women... i know its off topic, but i think it's interesting. :H
add that one two it if you like to sort 'us' out ...the timeline is just so skewed ..i bet you could not make one.??

[TrippinBTM]

First - Noah takes 2 or 7 of each 'Kind'.
A 'Kind' is established throughout Moses writing and indicates a whole class of animal.
For example there would be Seven Dogs. Not every possible version of dogs.
Another example - the main 'Deer' Kind. Not every version, antelope, caribou, gazelle etc etc.
Yes, its not the same exact way of language we use today but that is how the word 'Kind' was used then.

It seems to me frighteningly obvious that the Noah story could not have happened, for several reasons. Even if you want to go with "kinds" in the way you described, there would still never be enough room, or food, or waste disposal, for all of the millions of species out there. Ok, so not every species goes. We're still talking about hundreds of thousands of kinds. Also, for rain to fall at the rate needed in the bible, it would have to be insanely high rainfall at at such force that it would have destroyed everything (ark included) as though it were a comet strike. You know you can cut stone with pressurized water, quarry workers do it all the time. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html

The 'evolution' we are talking about is 'Natural Selection'.
So we are not asking for this 'Prime Deer' to spend millions of years ADDING genetic characteristics.
[Yes, that would be 'Tosh' if that was what I was talking about]

We are looking at exactly the same kind of Natural Selection we see today.
Genetic characteristics are being 'split off' from the 'Prime Kind' of creature.

So, as we see a Toy Poodle and a Great Dane 'Selected' out of the Grey Wolf in just 200 years - So we would see tremendous offshoots from this original 'Kind' put on the Ark.

If you go by kinds, you have to accept evolution to get the diversity we have. The problem is, evolution cannot produce such staggering results in just 3 or 4 thousand years. It is not possible for such dramatic change in such a small time.

And by the way, Toy Poodles and Great Danes did not get bred from the grey wolf in just 200 years. The wolf/dog was domesticated at least by 14,000 years ago. Distinctive breeds (sight hounds, mastiff-like guard dogs, etc) have been around for many thousands of years, so seperate breed-lines had already been seperated for a very long time and took millenia to get such specific breeds.

[Soulless||Chaos]

Quote:

As long as we're getting into DNA here, anyone read The Seven Daughters of Eve?
Basicaly, people of European descent can geneticaly be traced back to seven original women... i know its off topic, but i think it's interesting.
and that one two it if you like ...the timeline is just so skewed ..i bet you could not make one.??
..? what timeline? make what?

They can now narrow down all human DNA to one woman.. hehe.. researchers have dubbed her 'Eve'.
(I guess they didnt know Noahs Wifes name?)
they didn't narrow it down to one, it was seven completely seperate lines of DNA (i suppose they just thought the seven daughters of eve was a good title?), and it's not all human DNA, just european, but you should definatley check it out its an interesting read

[TrippinBTM]

As long as we're getting into DNA here, anyone read The Seven Daughters of Eve?
Basicaly, people of European descent can geneticaly be traced back to seven original women... i know its off topic, but i think it's interesting. :H
That means the DNA of those women was most successful and came to dominate in a much larger population (which included many other women)...it does not mean there were at one time only seven women on earth. The wording in these reports is often misleading. I'm sure you knew that, but many people don't.

[Genesis]

i see how it might work now.


but i was always under the impression those kinds of splits in "kinds" of animals took a lot longer than 10,000 years.

and how long was noahs ark considered to have taken place?



as for the matter of sea creatures. i don't think there would be any point in taking them on an ark if they were already aquatic and didn't need to be saved.

[matthew]

..? what timeline? make what?

This story happened at some time ..going on the noah story its about 4300 years ago.. but then this story may have been passed on from other civilisations..so the time gets pushed back..


But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee

I am assuming that noahs family was only one race .. so


They didn't narrow it down to one, it was seven completely seperate lines of DNA (i suppose they just thought the seven daughters of eve was a good title?), and it's not all human DNA, just european

only one line of DNA would have survived i guess .. but going on what happened with the creatures its possible that the whole diverse humankind came from this one group...


add that one two it if you like to sort 'us' out

[matthew]

as for the matter of sea creatures. i don't think there would be any point in taking them on an ark if they were already aquatic and didn't need to be saved.


yeah but i thought the creatures were being judged clean and unclean so?? but i did not see any mention of the sea creatures anyway ..this is why i asked why leave them out ??

[Genesis]

oh i see. im not too familiar with the story to be honest. well not in great detail i just thought they wouldn't have been taken because it would have been a waste of time and space cos the world was going to be covered in water anyway.


maybe he just hated fish.

[TrippinBTM]

yeah but i thought the creatures were being judged clean and unclean so?? but i did not see any mention of the sea creatures anyway ..this is why i asked why leave them out ??
The problem is, if the rain was fresh water, a lot of marine life would have died when their salt water got diluted. And fresh water life that can't survive in brakish water would have also died.

If the rain was salt water, then all the fresh water forms would die for certain, and maybe some that live in brakish water.

But clearly there'd be no space on the ark for these aquatic animals and plants. You can't put a shark on a boat.

[matthew]

oh i see. im not too familiar with the story to be honest. well not in great detail

Neither am i realy ;) but even so i think if you believe it the fatal flaws in this can not be ignored..or cleverly explained away

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

this is what realy drives me mad...because whe give our level of understanding back to a 'simpler time' yes now we can explain lots of things and go aghh but ..but this can not go on for ever.. i would just like this ridiculous story to finish and be proven for what it is a story ..not sure the meaning of the story but even so ..its just a story.

My thought is whats the point of judging us and then allowing a few to survive knowing that the whole cycle would happen again (look around) :) :(

[matthew]

The problem is, if the rain was fresh water, a lot of marine life would have died when their salt water got diluted. And fresh water life that can't survive in brakish water would have also died.

If the rain was salt water, then all the fresh water forms would die for certain, and maybe some that live in brakish water.

But clearly there'd be no space on the ark for these aquatic animals and plants. You can't put a shark on a boat.I have not seen any mention of aquatic life being put on the ark ... if they were not this story is nonsense because nothing i have read has told me why not

If they were put on the boat .. i agree with you you can't put a shark on a boat..but then this little problem is solved , because only a little baby shark maybe required..


Gee whiz the more i think about this..the more i realise why i am not religous (and no i am not rubbishing noahs ark because i don't believe)..its just if you believe .. make it make sense for us all someone ??

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2noah93.html

[Genesis]

it can't be nonsense just because they didn't put fish on a boat when they flooded the world.



how would they buil the tanks to keep all of these things.


some babies are quite large like.

[TrippinBTM]

it can't be nonsense just because they didn't put fish on a boat when they flooded the world.

how would they buil the tanks to keep all of these things.

some babies are quite large like.
But when you put all the elements of this story together and try to build a story out of it, you see that it by logistics alone (wooden boats that big collapse under their own weight, not enough water in the world to cover the mountains, rain would fall too fast and too hard and would have destroyed the ark, not enough space on the ark, etc) it would have to be fiction, and not realistic fiction. It's a nice story as far as mythologies go, but when you try to take it literally things get sticky.

[Genesis]

oh i took you literally and thought you meant it was nonsense cos the fish were left out of the boat.


but then again....he was god...if he could flood the earth,create man,resurect his son,give his son the power to heal illnesses with a touch of his hand, i figure he could probably make it work.

[bandit28]

(wooden boats that big collapse under their own weight, not enough water in the world to cover the mountains, rain would fall too fast and too hard and would have destroyed the ark, not enough space on the ark, etc)Apparently you just now came into this convo and you havent done any research on the matter other than "well this is what I heard". With the measurements given in The Bible, there have been scaled down replicas built, guess what, it floated and worked. Were you here whn it happened? Do you know what the earth was like when it happened? No, so your claim that there isn't enough water is just an assumption. The Ark's deminsions actualy had plenty of room for animals of each kind. Again, this has all been discused previously. I am not here to proove myself right or The Bible right. I already believe The Bible. Just because you don't believe it can happen, and lack the ability to explain that it could happen, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Wasn't to long ago that man thought flight was impossable. It took years and years of reaserch to figure out flight. Imagine if the Wright Brothers were like you, and just decided it wasn't possable.

[matthew]

It took years and years of reaserch to figure out flight. Imagine if the Wright Brothers were like you, and just decided it wasn't possable.
Personaly its not the boat that i have a problem with....it is the other stuff that seems unlikely. I look at the pyramids and realise what man can achieve.

[bandit28]

Unlikely, but not impossable.

[mother_nature's_son]

I dont agree with the temperatures MNSons evolutionists theorisors came up with because I cant see why the Earth would be the same today as it was then.
In other words.. I would not be wise to assume my Radiator temperature was the same before it ran out of water , as it would be if the water was still in it.Brock,
You are correct in saying that your radiator tempertaure would not be the same with and without water- because as we all know, water absorbs heat.

However, this analogy does not correspond to the machanics within the earth...
(The greatest commonality is that both radiator water and Noah's flood waters are very hot and contain harmful chemicals.)

The core temperature of our planet, if it has changed at all in the past few thousand years, has actually gotten cooler.

10 miles inside the Earth, where creationists claim the flood waters would have come from, the temperature is above 700 degrees F.

Brock, you argue that if water surrounded this 10 mile deep, 700 degree area; the heat would dissipate to the point that flood waters would not reach above boiling point- around 212 F.

What you have not taken into account is the fact that Earth's magma interior of 7,920 miles reaches temperatures up to 9,000 F.

The heat from the 700 degree area that was transfered into the flood waters would be replaced by a subsequent transfer of heat from areas inside the earth where temperatures soar into the thousands of degrees.

Thinking that 10 miles of water would dramatically cool temperatures inside the earth is like thinking that the same effect could be achieved by surrounding a radiator in a centimeter of water.

[Brocktoon]

I cant agree with your hypothesis because there are some inappropiate presumptions and assumptions.

Genesis implies a tremendous amout of damage.
After all, the crust of the Earth itself is described as being broken open and the Earth being dramatically changed.
Water is described as bursting out from 'Fountains' of the Great Deep (sometimes translated as 'springs')

So we dont really know exactly what this means but it certainly implies tremendous damage and change to the original Earth (Seas and Earth both)

So, how am I supposed to use the physics of the broken object to calculate how it worked when unchanged.
Im not and neither should you.

btw.. the second source of flood waters comes from the skies being 'broken open'. Wether this is a collapsing 'Vapour Canopy' or simply tremendous rains we dont know - but it did happen at the same time fountains burst up from the deeps.

but again, current temperatures (and in some cases theories about current temps) are being used to calculate temperatures and conditions which the very formula assumes were different.

This would be like you trying to calculate continental drift but then concluding it could not be possible since the continents are currently so far apart they have almost met in the middle at rates being proposed for drift in the last 100 million years.
You would conclude the continents would all be melded together in the Pacific?

It should be easy to explain where your going wrong but unfortunately I have yet to wake up this morning.
Good luck on your own ;)

[mother_nature's_son]

I cant agree with your hypothesis because there are some inappropiate presumptions and assumptions.

Genesis implies a tremendous amout of damage.
After all, the crust of the Earth itself is described as being broken open and the Earth being dramatically changed.
Water is described as bursting out from 'Fountains' of the Great Deep (sometimes translated as 'springs')

So we dont really know exactly what this means but it certainly implies tremendous damage and change to the original Earth (Seas and Earth both)
Genesis implies no change for the lower mantle (magma), the molten outer core, or the solid inner core. These components of earth lie 400 miles below the surface and beyond. These areas also have the greatest effect on earths interior temperatures.

If you want to believe that Genesis implies a change ('bursting forth') 10 miles into the earth's mantle, fine, but there is no reason for you to believe that the temperatures of inner earth which affect the temperatures of the mantle have changed.

Earth's mantle is extremely hot, -flood waters, cracking, 'bursting forth'- or not.

So, how am I supposed to use the physics of the broken object to calculate how it worked when unchanged.
Im not and neither should you.
A 'breaking' that occurs 10 miles into the earth has virtually no effect on interior temperatures, considering the fact that earth's interior extents several thousand miles. The area of inner earth we speak of in regard to the flood is a small fraction of a greater area. A 'drastic' change in the temperature of earth's mantle is simply not possible.

btw.. the second source of flood waters comes from the skies being 'broken open'. Wether this is a collapsing 'Vapour Canopy' or simply tremendous rains we dont know - but it did happen at the same time fountains burst up from the deeps.
A creationist link that you posted discounted the vapor canopy theory. They say a 2 meter canopy of water is as big as it could get.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html)

but again, current temperatures (and in some cases theories about current temps) are being used to calculate temperatures and conditions which the very formula assumes were different.
The formula assumes that a small fraction of the conditions were different. And a tiny change in one of the least consequential aspects of the conditions does not translate into drastic change.

This would be like you trying to calculate continental drift but then concluding it could not be possible since the continents are currently so far apart they have almost met in the middle at rates being proposed for drift in the last 100 million years.
You would conclude the continents would all be melded together in the Pacific?
Continental drift is currently being measured.

NASA scientists use Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) systems, Synthetic Aperture Radars (SAR), and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to measure and study the geodynamics of Earth. These contraptions have detected several inches of movement per year.

Radio telescopes at Mauna Kea Hawaii, the world's largest astronomical observatory, are also able to detect continental drift.

As for the bit about continents being melded together...

250 years they were. And it is widely theorized that eventually the continents will meld together again.

btw,
The rock formations and minerals in the Caledonian mountains of northern Europe -from the arctic circle through Scandanavia and Scotland to northwest Ireland- match up with the formations and minerals in the Appalachian mountains of the eastern United States and Canada.

Also, fossils of the great Permian reptile Mesosaurus were found on both sides of the South Atlantic Ocean -in eastern Brazil and in South Africa- and no where else.

[Brocktoon]

Yes we know that the continents match perfectly.
In some cases.. if you could drag the shorelines back together they would fit together almost as perfectly as a jigsaw puzzle.

Please stop pretending this is something you the Evolutionists are 'explaining' to us.
You must be pretty fucked up over why the same fossils are found in those areas?

So you are theorising that if any kind of subteranean springs were to burst and flood the planet there would be what?
Unbelievable destruction?

Steam so hot it would send every cloud above the Earth to rain?

Kill every living thing on Earth?

Yes, I think you are in agreement with Genesis which describes the combination of waters coming up and water coming down as nothing short of Earth destroying chaos?

BTW.. no, I do not agree with your conclusion the Earth 'must' have been the same temperature before continental drift occured.
Im not suggesting I know either - but I doubt you can speculate what the mantle was like before either the planet expanded and/or the continent began spreading apart.

[mother_nature's_son]

You must be pretty fucked up over why the same fossils are found in those areas?What? No, absolutely not.

Honestly, you are one of the few creationists I have had a discussion with that actually supports PANGEA.

Perhaps this is because it would be scientifically impossible for the continents to move thousands of miles in a biblical timeframe? hmm...

So you are theorising that if any kind of subteranean springs were to burst and flood the planet there would be what?
Water hot and toxic enough to boil and/or suffocate Noah and his floating circus.

Yes, I think you are in agreement with Genesis which describes the combination of waters coming up and water coming down as nothing short of Earth destroying chaos?Again, a creationist link that YOU posted discounts the vapor canopy theory. Please acknowledge this.

BTW.. no, I do not agree with your conclusion the Earth 'must' have been the same temperature before continental drift occured.
Im not suggesting I know either - but I doubt you can speculate what the mantle was like before either the planet expanded and/or the continent began spreading apart.
The continental movement/expansion that you speak of occurs mostly in earth's crust. Only a small amount of this takes place in the uppermost mantle.

The mantle altogether is about 1,700 miles thick. The mantle gets warmer with depth; the top of the mantle is about 1,600° F; towards the bottom of the mantle, the temperature is about 4,000-6,700° F. The mantle contains most of the mass of the Earth.

Creationist theory on alterations of the earth concern the continental crust with depths like 10 miles. There is absolutely no reason to believe Earth's HUGE and hot mantle would have, or could have changed.

[Brocktoon]

One problem you have is taking selected theories (actually hypothesis) from certain Creationist speculators and then supposing to test them against current conditions or (more dubiously) current evolutionist theories.

Simple adding numbers and decimal points, or detailed 'explanations' of side issues will not make it 'more true'. Just thought I should give you a heads up on that because it does appear to be a form of 'compensation' ok?

I am not arguing for or against this one particular websites 'Canopy Theory' but I cant (and you cant) say they are correct either.

Funny but you are very quick to grant acceptance to any Creationist theory if it suits your own (at the particular time)?

Now just to be clear - YOU are suggesting that the subterrainian waters were contaminated with magma and YOU are suggesting they were in direct contact with the Earths temperatures.
All I know is that there is water coming from 'Depths' and its described as being held in 'Fountains' or 'Springs'.
This does not therefore automatically imply they must be like todays Springs.

Question for you?

When you saw this theory of poisonous boiling water spewing forth - Did your formula take into consideration this was happening in the Sea?

Now, since we dont take 'Half the premise' I wonder if you are considering mitigating factors brought on by the deluge from the sky?

It does indeed call both outpourings happening at the same time so we have to include that in there.

Personally, I read a theory about poisonous boiling water being spewed into the air and the theory that this would kill Noahs lifeforms.
Unlike you - I dont swallow it as Gospel just because an Evolutionist tells me it 'must be' so.

BTW.. dont even try and pretend as if Panagea was in any way predicted or 'fits into' Evolutionism.
It doesnt.

Like most facts, evolutionists just came across it, were amazed and scrambled to 'write it in' to their story.
Laughably, in an effort to 'explain away' the suspiciously exact 'mutating' happening on completely seperate continents - the Evolutionists created endless myths about ... LOL.... Animals saving themselves by floating on tiny 'Arks' across Oceans and coincidently meeting another animal (mate) and then 'restarting' on the new continent.

Oh and Continental Drift does fit well into the Genesis account.
The Drift would be happening at an astonishingly SLOW rate of just 4 ft a day (average of course)
Considering the average nice hot Volcano can pour out 4 ft of molten rock a second - 4 ft a day for a freshly active Mid-Atlantic ridge is pretty slow alright - but over hundreds.. then thousands of years - it does work out to a pretty accurate timeline.

[Genesis]

YOU MEAN PANGEA DIDN'T EVER EXIST?!?!?:eek:



*faints*

[Brocktoon]

Sometimes Ol Brocktoon posts late at night and his grammar is sloppy.
Even still..

Cant imagine why you are asking this question Genesis?

Interesting thing... a lot of critics like to ask the question [usually with a snicker] "Oh.. so Noah gathered animals from all over the Earth eh... so how did he get to Australia or North America?"

When modern maps and geology began to come together it became pretty clear that all the continents had been one Earth before and are splitting apart.

Evolutionists are hilarious sometimes.... many still pretend as if this 'fits into' what they have been speculating on..

It fits with the idea that Noah could gather animals from one 'continent'.
It fits with the previously mysterious reports in Genesis of the Earth being 'Divided in those days'.
A mid-atlantic ridge certainly fits with the idea of 'The Fountains of the deep breaking open' [not the same phenom but interesting to compare]

How does Panagea fit into evolutionism stories?

Well.. it doesnt.

So they have to 'explain around it'.

Lifeforms morphed into more and more complex lifeforms for millions of years... errr... until the continents separated...
.. then the separate gene pools coincidently just stopped evolving more complexity and began to change only be genetic selection (a completely different and even 'opposite' process)

Oh.. yes.. there was a lot of intermixing by crossing an 'Ice Bridge' (this includes Parrots and Reptiles .. but dont talk about that!)

Oh... and identical Dinosaurs on completely separate continents coincidently morphed into the exact same kinds of tiny birds!

Panagea... NOT the 'property' of Evolutionists and no friend either.

[Genesis]

Cant imagine why you are asking this question Genesis?


lmao...

why did you misspell it like yours truely??



anyway...nah it was a bit of lightheartedness. i was goulin if you will.

[Brocktoon]

Ok Gotcha.
hehe
I dont think Ive spelled it properly once. What do i say - Panagea?

lol

And did I 'Misspell' it or Mispell. Is Misspell a word?
Is it Spelt or Spelled?

I think it depends on what side of the Continental Drift you live on ;)

[StonerBill]

Continental Drift

I dont believe you actually understand continental drift.


By your theorising, teh animals would have had to run thousands of kilometers (knowing of course, exactly the direction they have to travel and the quickest routes around mountain ridges etc)

in a few years.

IF they are not fast enough they will have to travel across numerous strips of molten lava, which they consciously jump over, because their animal-reasoning is governed by the foresight that behind these searingly hot ridge lines, and after a few more thousand kilometers of sprinting, is a
much more fertile land than waht theyre in at the time.

Evolution


I dont think you quite understand evolution as well. It is much more complex than creationist theories, you cannot assume they are on teh same level of understanding.

'how do you explain dinosaurs evolving into identical litlte birds on opposite sides of the planet'

How many identical animals do you know that evolutionists claim evolved identical paths in seperate climates?

'evolutionists say that tehre was a complex form of evolution up until pangea after which a simpler form of evolution replaced it'

Where did you get the idea that "complex' evolution stopped at one point, then some other type of evolution copntinued after pangea split?

Animals dont morph. Thye also dont accurately, spontaneously evolve into suitable new forms that suit their environment.

This is the clear sign that you do not understand the nature of evolution as much as you like to claim you did.


in conclusion

stop telling biblebashers off for not knowing the intiricicies of the bible well enough when msot of youse dont comprehend evolution past the most prinicple ideas. Most atheists dont even understand evolution properly.

edited in italics, and paragraphs broken up for brocks limited mind power that cannot seem to grasp anything unless its in perfect grammar

[Brocktoon]

Stonerbill
Yes, I do understand evolutionism.
You do not.
You are probably stoned and that would explain the weird rambling round-a-bout of a reply you directed.. at me?

Natural Selection after the flood and Continental Drift more than adequately explains what we see today.

The addition of new genetic information is a fine myth.
Enjoy that.

It was cute how you got daring and confused enough to try and copy MHS thing of 'Explaining' conjecture to the little non-science people.

Its called 'Posteuring' and its silly.

(and Aussies are particularly bad at it, just like humour or culture)

[mother_nature's_son]

Brock-

So you are claiming that Pangea completely supports creationism and completely fails evolution...
(Meanwhile you haven’t even been spelling the word PANGEA correctly. I wonder how much research you have really put into this....)

Allow me to explain why I think you are entirely wrong.

Oh and Continental Drift does fit well into the Genesis account.
The Drift would be happening at an astonishingly SLOW rate of just 4 ft a day (average of course)
Considering the average nice hot Volcano can pour out 4 ft of molten rock a second - 4 ft a day for a freshly active Mid-Atlantic ridge is pretty slow alright - but over hundreds.. then thousands of years - it does work out to a pretty accurate timeline.4 feet of drift a day is impossible.
4 feet of plate movement a day would produce MASSIVE earthquakes, WORLDWIDE.

-Tidal waves constantly bounding across the oceans and crashing upon the land.

-All of earths active volcanoes would be spewing magma non-stop, shrouding the atmosphere with ash.

-The sun’s light would not reach earth.

And to believe this went on for what, thousands of years?

Terrestrial life wouldn’t stand a chance.

Noah and circus certainly wouldn’t stand a chance either.

4 ft a day for a freshly active Mid-Atlantic ridge is pretty slow alright.YOU'VE GOT TO BE JOKING!

The Mid-Atlantic ridge spreads INCHES PER YEAR.

Im sorry, but your statement is just absolutely ridiculous.


Interesting thing... a lot of critics like to ask the question [usually with a snicker] "Oh.. so Noah gathered animals from all over the Earth eh... so how did he get to Australia or North America?"

When modern maps and geology began to come together it became pretty clear that all the continents had been one Earth before and are splitting apart.

It fits with the idea that Noah could gather animals from one 'continent'.Brock, would you like to explain how, after the flood, the vast majority of marsupials ended up only in Australia? And how was it that no rats came along with? How did the tree-dwelling Koala Bears make the 9,000 mile journey from Mt. Ararat to Australia, especially considering they only eat a few subspecies of eucalyptus? How did slow-motion sloths make it 16,000 miles from Mt. Ararat to South America? How were the continents repopulated by animals after the flood?

[Brocktoon]

First,
Four inches a day is an average. Stop pretending like its not likely just because you WRITE IN BIG CAPS AS IF ITS INCREDULOUS.

Drift would be much faster than today for sure.

Gene pools answers your next question. Its not complicated at all.

Explaining to me how they morphed into new animals would be much much more complicated (and impossible).

Enjoy

[StonerBill]

dont tell me you know more about evolution when you continue to use words like


"how they morphed into new animals "

Give an example of an evolutionary step that you dont think is feasable.

you didnt answer teh question raised on how koalas traveled the distance. genepools is not an answer.

And according to you, evolution from a mammal to a marsupial is too much.

youve been watching too much pokemon

First,
Four inches a day is an average. Stop pretending like its not likely just because you WRITE IN BIG CAPS AS IF ITS INCREDULOUS. Where did 4 inches a day come from?

Drift would be much faster than today for sure.
Well since the surface area of the edges of continents moving away from eacother increased as the continents moved away form eachother, continental drift would have actually accellerated from tis starting point, not decellerated.

however, that is too simple a model. There is no reason to say it would have been faster or slower at any point because faster movement on one end of a continent would be counterbalanced by the obstruction of continenets on teh other side.

Overall, continental drift of teh earth would have been very stable since pangea and variations would at no point reach 4 feet a day, at least for long enough to sustain the speed you require.


Notice how ive tried to keep my post to the smallest paragraph size jsut for you, Brock, to accomodate for your inability to understand things that arent written in a nice simple manner.

You display nothing by putting me down wihtout reason.

[StonerBill]

People wouldnt need to "try" to explain things to you brock if you didnt leave so many holes and errors in your shown understanding of the topics.

And show me how my post was round about, it seems clearly structured to me, how about i edit in some titles for you?

*edits subject post*

[mother_nature's_son]

First,
Four inches a day is an average. Stop pretending like its not likely just because you WRITE IN BIG CAPS AS IF ITS INCREDULOUS.

Drift would be much faster than today for sure.

Gene pools answers your next question. Its not complicated at all.

Explaining to me how they morphed into new animals would be much much more complicated (and impossible).

EnjoyBrock,

With this last post of yours, you have reached an all time low.

To begin with, you are forgetting the details of your own (impossible) theory.
Before you quoted 4 FEET A DAY.
Now you quote 4 INCHES A DAY.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regard to plate tectonics or evolution.

We can all see this.

'Panagea'.

Way to completely discredit yourself. It really makes it alot easier on me. :)


And then, as stonerbill pointed out, you gave a totally bullshit answer to my questions.

I asked you how sloths made it 16,000 miles from Mt. Ararat to South America. How did they cross the oceans? How did they cross the deserts? How did they cross the ice?

You cannot give a real answer because Noah's Ark is a fairy tale.

And just think, 95% of the people around you know it's a fairy tale. You are behind...

[StonerBill]

hang on, more than 5% of people are christian or jewish arent they? wow

[bandit28]

Exaplin to me how if by chance the continets moved 4 feet a day it would cause the light from the sun to stop shining on the earth.

God gathered the animals before the flood, so I am pretty sure he had the ability to redistribute them after the flood.

You guys keep talking, but neither of you(stonerbill or MNS) are saying anything. Everything here is a theory. None of you were around then so you can't proove our theories as facts.

It is sad really. To see the both of you so dedicated against God. Imagine how awsome your life would be if you focused all that energy into serving God.

[matthew]

I think a few people like just discussing the subject for the intelectual stimulus...when i and and others stepped in these people did not bother us or anything we had to say (much) .. I think i and others talked about it in the real world and not as some thesis .

Clearly the ark story does not hold up ..and can be postulated as much as people like..end of the day its a lovely story ...clearly flawed and based on hearsay.

[bandit28]

Well I disagree. Besides, you have no proof showing that Noah never built the Ark. You have no proof that the world never flooded. You have no proof that non of this happened. Therefore, anything you say is just a theory, a best guess.

[mother_nature's_son]

Exaplin to me how if by chance the continets moved 4 feet a day it would cause the light from the sun to stop shining on the earth.When continents move, certain areas do what is called 'subducting', where one plate is forced under another. When this plate is forced down and reaches a certain depth within the Earth, the rock melts into magma. This is the way rocks are recycled on earth.
As new magma is created this way, it in turn 'pushes' magma out through ridges.

Now, this process of recycling happens at measured rates of inches per year.

If you increase the speed of this process by... what, something like, over 35,000%... to attain 4 feet a day...

what's gonna happen, is that all geologic process involving magma are going to increase to the same degree.

Magma would be flowing so fast (impossibly fast), that normal cooling processes would not take place, and magma would be spewing forth from the neares outlets to the surface available.

So when you consider that 80% of volcanoes are located at plate boundaries where subduction zones occur, you really get the idea.

As far as the ash- it happens whenever a volcano erupts. Even when just a single large eruption occurs, gas and ash rise high into the stratosphere to be seen even from space. When this happens, high level winds often carry the ash thousands of miles through the sky.

With the frequency of eruption that would occur at 4 feet of movement a day, the atmosphere wouldn't have time to clear.

And not only this, but think about the strength and frequency of earthquakes that would occur if plates moved over 35,000% faster than they currently are... yea, HUGE problem there.

God gathered the animals before the flood, so I am pretty sure he had the ability to redistribute them after the flood.God vs. science. Completely different mechanisms. We are mostly concerned with science in this discussion.

It is sad really. To see the both of you so dedicated against God. Imagine how awsome your life would be if you focused all that energy into serving God.Bandit, please understand that I am not 'dedicated against god'. I am dedicated against a certain version of a specific religion. I am not unspiritual person.

hang on, more than 5% of people are christian or jewish arent they? wowYes, but not all chrisitians and jews support creationism. In fact, MOST chrisitans and jews do not support creationism.

[Brocktoon]

Brock,

With this last post of yours, you have reached an all time low.

[QUOTE] To begin with, you are forgetting the details of your own (impossible) theory.
Before you quoted 4 FEET A DAY.
Now you quote 4 INCHES A DAY. Speaking of 'all time lows' your just about at the level of catching me up on typos'
You and I have debated it being an average of four feet a day (vs your outlandish 4inches a year silliness) and there is no doubt in my mind you knew what i meant and instantly recognised I was mistyping.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regard to plate tectonics or evolution. Yes I do.. or at least more than you do.


We can all see this. More 'all time lows' when you are resorting to the 'appeal to authority and/or majority' validation tactic.. and.. LMAO.. your 'We' consists of StonerBill LOL!

'Panagea'. I like to call it Pangea. Deal with it.

Way to completely discredit yourself. It really makes it alot easier on me. :)


And then, as stonerbill pointed out, you gave a totally bullshit answer to my questions. I gave you the most likely explanation. We call this 'Science'.

I asked you how sloths made it 16,000 miles from Mt. Ararat to South America. Sloths may very well be a subset of an original 'Kind' of animal, long since extinct.
I know you cant 'get this straight' but try and follow along with this concept.
Continental Drift occurs AFTER THE FLOOD.

You are the one completely fucked on how to explain how this happened since your continents are already separated LONG before your 'evolution' is completed the Sloth.

How did they cross the oceans? That is YOUR BURDEN to explain. The Genesis Theories do not call for Oceans to be crossed (yet).
YOU must explain how they boarded tiny 'Arks' and floated two-by-two across expanses.

How did they cross the deserts? Thats a good question for you too.

How did they cross the ice? Yet another question completely baffling to YOUR theory.
The best any of the 'Slow Continental Drift' believers can come up with is 'Ice Bridges'.
So far no explanation how all the animals of Eurasia paraded across Alaska but Im sure they must have all 'evolved' fur and insulation?


You cannot give a real answer because Noah's Ark is a fairy tale. Nice 'Trash Talk'. Did they teach you that in 'Evolutionist last desperate resort' 101?

And just think, 95% of the people around you know it's a fairy tale. You are behind... 95% of the people know that when a theory is so weak and flawed that its proponents can only sell it with "everyone else does" then its time to throw it away.

Evolutionism is nothing more than an animated corpse now.
Maybe a big shiny red balloon... full of nothing inside and ready to deflate.
The Public is only beginning to catch on to the farce and scientific enlightenment is crushing whats left.

[Brocktoon]

For the benefit of MHS (and Crazy jr.) I was checking out some articles written by actual scientists:
Maybe the most interesting was this:

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

The earth's mantle in the numerical model is treated as an irrotational, infinite Prandtl number, anelastic Newtonian fluid within a spherical shell with isothermal, undeformable, traction-free boundaries. Under these conditions the following equations describe the local fluid behavior:


0= -http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/v.gif (p - pr) + (r - rr) g + http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/vdot.gif t

(1)

0=http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/vdot.gif (r u)

(2)

dT/dt=-http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/vdot.gif (T u) - (g - 1) T http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/vdot.gif u + [http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/vdot.gif (k http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/v.gif T) + t : http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/v.gif u + H]/rrcv

(3)
where t =m [http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/v.gif u + (http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/v.gif u)T - 2 I (http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfiles/vdot.gif u)/3]

(4)
and r=rr + rr(p - pr)/K - a(T - Tr).
(5)

Here p denotes pressure, r density, g gravitational acceleration, t deviatoric stress, u fluid velocity, T absolute temperature, g the Grueneisen parameter, k thermal conductivity, H volume heat production rate, cv specific heat at constant volume, m dynamic shear viscosity, K the isothermal bulk modulus, and a the volume coefficient of thermal expansion. The quantities pr, rr, and Tr are, respectively, the radially varying pressure, density, and temperature of the reference state used for the mantle. I is the identity tensor. The superscript T in (4) denotes the tensor transpose. Equation (1) expresses the conservation of momentum in the infinite Prandtl number limit. In this limit, the deformational term is so large that the inertial terms (as well as the rotational terms) may be completely ignored. The resulting equation (1) then represents the balance among forces arising from pressure gradients, buoyancy, and deformation. Equation (2) expresses the conservation of mass under the anelastic approximation. The anelastic approximation ignores the partial derivative of density with respect to time in the dynamics and thereby eliminates fast local density oscillations. It allows the computational time step to be dictated by the much slower deformational dynamics. Equation (3) expresses the conservation of energy in terms of absolute temperature. It includes effects of transport of heat by the flowing material, compressional heating and expansion cooling, thermal conduction, shear or deformational heating, and local volume (e.g., radiogenic) heating.

The Whole Article is found at: http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm

Also interesting to this disussion:

Before the 1960s, most geologists were adamant that the continents were stationary. A handful promoted the notion that the continents had moved (continental drift), but they were accused by the majority of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy. Today, that opinion has reversed—plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling theory.

(Interestingly, it was a creationist, Antonio Snider, who in 1859 first proposed horizontal movement of continents catastrophically during the Genesis flood.1 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/continental11.asp#1) The statements in Genesis 1:9-10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN%2B1:9-10&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on) about the gathering together of the seas in one place, which implies there was one landmass, influenced his thinking.)

That article at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/continental11.asp

BTW, Despite the fact that Evolutionists PRETEND 'they' are explaining continental drift to the world - the fact is, Continental drift is NO friend to them and IS A FRIEND to Genesis accounts of events.

This article gives a brief overview of why Continental Drift 'Squares up' with, what critics once called 'Mythical stories'.
The Earth was once all 'one place'?
The Earth was divided?

Yep.. and Genesis called it first.
http://new.jpdawson.com/daypeleg.html (non-technical)

Now MHS, you continue to state your 1981 textbook version of subduction as if it were the final word of God.
I notice you have a logic problem getting in your way .. You suppose a 'what if' Creationist model.
Then you 'test it' by trying to ram a portion of that model into the Evolutionist model.
That is simply BAD SCIENCE.

"Hmmm this part of a different model does not fit into my model... therefore it can not be true"

Good work Einstien!

You dont even want to entertain the idea that YOUR model (which is NOT the standard by which the Creation model will answer to anyway) is not as axiomatic as you want to believe anyway:

Two major difficulties are encountered by models supposing subduction to explain the modern tectonic phenomena in ocean trenches. First, if subduction theory is correct, there should be compressed, deformed, and thrust faulted sediment on the floors of trenches. Studies of the Peru-Chile Trench and the eastern Aleutian Trench,8 however, show soft flat lying sediment without compression structures. Second, seismic first-motion data indicate that modern earthquakes occurring approximately under trenches and island arcs are often tensional, but only rarely compressional.9


Full Article here: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm

And just to answer your question about Marsupials...
Oddly enough scientists and evolutionsts agree on this..
Marsupials were likely all over the southern region but when the gene pool was split up (Continental drift) and Ice ages and dramatic climate changes varied ... most Marsupials in (example) colder North America died off.
Some branches of Marsupial (in this example Oppossums) were hearty enough to stick around.

But ya,, you two leach-doctors can just keep on asking questions which embarrass your 19th centure evolutionism religion and eventually the truth of Genesis will find its way to the front and centre.

Not that Pangea has anything to do with morphing animals (btw.. yes you believe they morph and your books on MORPHOLOGY in Evolutionism do to).
Still.. I did find it amusing to watch Evolutionists scrambling to smash and twist their Evolutionist theory to fit the shocking Genesis described Pangea!
Good times!

[StonerBill]

Well I disagree. Besides, you have no proof showing that Noah never built the Ark. You have no proof that the world never flooded. You have no proof that non of this happened. Therefore, anything you say is just a theory, a best guess.
jsut to skip back to this in this short time, stop using the 'no proof is proof' notion godammit!

ill repeat analogies ive used before

if a mudrered commits the perfect crime. Having no proof of his guilt doesnt make him innocent. It leaves room for the discussion of his innocence, however, no actual conclusion can ever be really made. Just like religion can never be actually proven wrong, jsut because of its nature, but it cant be proven true either.

your bible is not proof! Bible is the record of the religion, but in its nature, is no more proof of christianity as olf greek scripts were proof of anchient greek mythology or the quran is proof of Islam.

The fact that it is more popular and more consistent doesnt make it more true. Macdonalds is more popular and more consistant than Burger king but its not more healthy than burger king.

[Brocktoon]

StonerBill.
In that case, please explain what the fossil record is a record of?

[bandit28]

Also, if that is the case, then what does all that recorded information about the Civil War mean? Or the American Revolution. Or WWI or WWII? Just as it can be proven that either McDonalds is healthier than Burger King or vice versa, these wars can be proven just as easily as The Bible. You can read a book on one of the wars and never have heard about it before and choose to believe it or not. Same with The Bible.

[StonerBill]

A fossil record is a physical imprint, and this thread is about discussing the interpretation of pysical evidence. you could dispute that a fossil was unrelated to the supposed shells and plants that they are said to be formed from, but you wouldnt have a good try because there is more certainty for it. With situations like this however, it leads to this discussion over the last 15 pages or so.


However, the 'history records' 'proof' is not valid because there are -historic records- of events before many of thsoe in the bible. Historians were defined, and so were historic proofs, as historic wihtout religious views taken acount of. However where are the historic records of the bible? Where are the records that relate to the events of the bible, wihtout the religious undertone of the bible?

Also, the bible's records are mostly in story form, not in record form, which is not a modern thing, historic records reach back to the dawning of recorded language. Historic records are not written in story form. Many stories are true of course, but no stories that do no have historic records backing them up are accepted fully as the absolute truth, even if they may be.

It is not simply a matter of the writing genra. The nature of historic records is that important issues are recorded that way, many times, depending on how much written language was around at the time. No important records are kept solely as story form, unless that is the only form used, and in the case of the culture of the mediteranean and middle east, it was not.

Many fundemental parts of the bible, the torah, were from before the limits of recorded language. However, this is the very fact that renders them invalid as reliable historic references.

And finally there is the fact that in the many years bc, when the OT was written, so were many other religious scripts. They cannot all be correct, and it is most probable that none are, for the culture of those days was not one of truths, it was of the undeveloped, ignorant old human culture, that had no sense of science (even the sciences accepted by everyone today) whatsoever. Since they cant all be true, we can conclude that it was common of the cultures to create reality out of stories. The bible is therefor nothing more than a more widely accepted, elabourate form of these, that is, until more evidence is found to lift it -significantly- to a level above other religious stories.


The civil war has hundreds of certified historic references, with records of names, exact places, exact dates. Even if everyhting above is diregarded, the bible contains little to no exact details, past names of characters and names of cities and stuff like that. Nowhere near the magnitude of the civil war. the more sources and details, and the more correlation of details, the more credible the source. And so you cant compare the events we learn in class and stuff, with the events of the bible. It doesnt matter that written records were not common back then.

[StonerBill]

I cannot vouch for that post fitting brock's language requirements, sorry if it doesnt, but please get over that.

[mother_nature's_son]

You and I have debated it being an average of four feet a day (vs your outlandish 4inches a year silliness) and there is no doubt in my mind you knew what i meant and instantly recognised I was mistyping.
Mere inches a year of continental movement has been PROVEN; measured by NASA! I already explained this, post #134.

You call it silly and outlandish. The world’s best technology calls it fact!
Your position is completely indefensible.


I know you cant 'get this straight' but try and follow along with this concept.
Continental Drift occurs AFTER THE FLOOD.
IMPOSSIBLE.

You cannot argue with NASA's Satellite Laser Ranging systems, Synthetic Aperture Radars, and Global Positioning Systems; or radio telescopes at the world's largest astronomical observatory...

All of which agree that the continents drift a few inches per year.

You are the one completely fucked on how to explain how this happened since your continents are already separated LONG before your 'evolution' is completed the Sloth.Sloths are only found in South America.



The best any of the 'Slow Continental Drift' believers can come up with is 'Ice Bridges'.

So far no explanation how all the animals of Eurasia paraded across Alaska but Im sure they must have all 'evolved' fur and insulation?
Yes, there was a DRY bridge connecting Asia to North America, that appeared more than once throughout geologic history. And no, the cold in the north is not a problem. Reptiles and insects already existed on all the continents, and birds could fly between them. That leaves mammals, which do have fur and insulation -thank you for pointing that out. Mammals in Central and South American rainforests had plenty of time to adapt to warmer climates -millions of years-.


Similar land bridges are postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia, between the Philippines and China, between Sri Lanka and India, and between the Southeast Asian mainland and the Indonesian islands.

[Brocktoon]

Dear MHS,

Your really need to stop and think once in a while.
Drift is now over.
Sure, several inches here and there now that the continents now back into each other.

As a rule, a theory supposes that something 'different' happened before.

Next time try and refute the actual issue at hand and not knee-jerk into ridiculous comebacks.
We all know the continents barely move anymore.
Thats not the debate.

This is not even close to the incredibly slow moving average that would have gone on in the beginning.

[Brocktoon]

BTW..

Its hilarious that you insist Drift must have always been exactly the same as now - yet. .. you are willing to accept a completely imaginary story about Dry Land Bridges as 'fact' - even though there are NO land bridges.
(Nasa has proven this)

[StonerBill]

Can you please simply give a logical reason as to believe that continental drift would start fast (evidently started by god you would have to claim) and has now slowed to a spot?


and you cant deny that the continents are still moving? how? Do you think nasa has made this up as a joke?

[know1nozme]

Can you please simply give a logical reason as to believe that continental drift would start fast (evidently started by god you would have to claim) and has now slowed to a spot?


and you cant deny that the continents are still moving? how? Do you think nasa has made this up as a joke?
Just a guess, but I'm betting that his defense is based on a misconception that the speed of light is not actually a constant. Once you start trying to disprove the results of tests conducted with rigorous scientific methodology, you have to start calling other tested and accepted sceintific ideas into question because the calculations which resolve the previous quandry are based on them - can't agrue with the empiric, measurable, documentable evidence so you have to attack the math. It's a domino effect. Pretty soon he'll be telling us that the theory of gravity is a misconception.

[Brocktoon]

Nice insult post know1nozeme.

Your asking for a theory.
Not Math.

This is because no one (incl NASA) has been measuring anything for the last 5,000 years.

So you have no choice but to theorise.

If you want to pretend that its a simple as measuring the movement today and calculatng backwards then the earth meets in a Pangea and shrinks into itself at 4 inches a year.. until eventually being a superdense atom in the middle of a watery planet.

So if you run the film in 'Reverse' you would see the continents puzzle back together and eventually stop.

Again.. you have to use common sense when theorising. If the continents have spread so far apart they are now meeting each other in the Pacific Rim.. then its not surprising they have slowed down to an almost stop.

Hey if you want to take this stance fine.. but dont pretend like you believe in genetic evolutionism either.
Since there is Zero observation of novel genetic information being generated in animals today...
You do that math know1knozme

[Shane99X]

Nice insult post know1nozeme.

Your asking for a theory.
Not Math.

This is because no one (incl NASA) has been measuring anything for the last 5,000 years.

So you have no choice but to theorise.

If you want to pretend that its a simple as measuring the movement today and calculatng backwards then the earth meets in a Pangea and shrinks into itself at 4 inches a year.. until eventually being a superdense atom in the middle of a watery planet.

So if you run the film in 'Reverse' you would see the continents puzzle back together and eventually stop.

Again.. you have to use common sense when theorising. If the continents have spread so far apart they are now meeting each other in the Pacific Rim.. then its not surprising they have slowed down to an almost stop.

Hey if you want to take this stance fine.. but dont pretend like you believe in genetic evolutionism either.
Since there is Zero observation of novel genetic information being generated in animals today...
You do that math know1knozme
That doesn't make any sense.:confused:

[fulmah]

This is because no one (incl NASA) has been measuring anything for the last 5,000 years.
Can you tell me what earthquakes are, then?

[know1nozme]

Nice insult post know1nozeme.
I fail to see any insult in my previous post. I'm just pointing out that in order to defend your theories concerning the events of the last 5000 years, you are willing to disregard any other established scientific theory.

If you have to claim that the speed of light isn't constant because we have no measurements of it taken from 5000 years ago in order to keep your own theory in play, you won't hesitate to do that. If it turned out that the theory of gravity could be used to mathematically "prove" (as much as it can since it is, after all, a theory) that the universe was several billion years old, you wouldn't hesitate to strike that theory because, as I said, it's just a theory.

Is that an insult, or is it an accurate portrayal of the methodology you employ to defend your beliefs?

[Brocktoon]

That doesn't make any sense.:confused:
Yes it does.
Please pay attention.
Thanks.

[Brocktoon]

Can you tell me what earthquakes are, then?
Now, that really didn't make any sense.

(please tell me you know Im refering to living people today right?)

[JesusDiedForU]

hey guys, i was excited to see this thread, but I was expecting to read something about the news special on CNN that elaborates on the actual trip up mount Aaraat planned for this summer 2004!!!

the article I read said that last summer the heat wave in Europe revealed a shape under the snow and ice that was so many feet wide and so many feet long. A team for the climb has been put together for the exciting adventure, and I can't wait to see what happens! Could you imagine? they find Noah's ark!!!???what a witness to the world eh? that would be awesome, I am praying that they find it for sure!
I'll try to find the link so y'all can read it for yerselves, if they even keep old news in archives, which they probably do. also, there are websites out there that are dedicated to Noah's ark, you might be able to find some interesting facts if you look it up on your search engines.
let 'em have it Lord!!!LOL
What ever happened to that expedition?

[Brocktoon]

Is that an insult, or is it an accurate portrayal of the methodology you employ to defend your beliefs?
Dont bother trying to switch and mix concepts thanks.
You mixed insults in with your poor comparative questions.

The Latter is a poor comparison (so its more insulting to people intelligence than anything).

Continental Drift has a beginning and an end.
At this point the continents are no longer drifting apart but rather, meeting together.

We can make an educated guess the Drift started.

Then we have no choice but to make some assumptions based on the way other things in nature work.
(Gravity or light are very very poor comparisons but I wont rub it in)

You might even look at some Lava flows and note they are moving at a certain speed.
Did it always move that slow?
No.
We remember when it was moving much much faster at the beginning.

We also look at basic laws of physics.
If something is meeting resistance, is it going slower than when it was not meeting resistance?
Yes.. that is usually the case.

So you see... we dont actually know how fast Continents Drifted (and/or the Earth expanded) but we can make good estimates based on Science.
Now we also look at evidence like Ancient Civilisations and their records.

In this case, ancient Jews refer to the Earth being divided (and before that the Earth being in one place.. and the waters in another).
We also look at things like Archaeology and even Botony etc.

Ooop... penultimate BigBrother 5 episode is on. .later.

[fulmah]

Now, that really didn't make any sense.

(please tell me you know Im refering to living people today right?)You said,

This is because no one (incl NASA) has been measuring anything for the last 5,000 years.referring to tectonic plate movements, right?

I'm really not trying to be sarcastic here, but; you mean to tell me that earthquakes aren't caused by tectonic plates colliding against each other, as detected by geological scientists?

If I'm misunderstanding your argument, please correct me. :)

[Brocktoon]

Why are you pretending that earthquakes are 'your evidence' and why do you keep 'challenging me' to 'answer' for earthquakes?

Keep in mind.. Earthquakes are recorded in Genesis and throughout Scripture (something NASA didnt do btw)

[know1nozme]

Is that an insult, or is it an accurate portrayal of the methodology you employ to defend your beliefs?

Look through my posts in this thread, and find another question I have asked. Allow me to help you. Post #165 is the first post I've made to this thread. Post #169 is the second post, and this post (#176) is the third.

Don’t bother trying to switch and mix concepts thanks.
You mixed insults in with your poor comparative questions.

Of all three posts I have asked only one question; the one quoted above. It could be termed a comparative question, if you like, asking you to determine if my analysis was an insult or if it was, in fact, an accurate analysis. It is not, in my estimation, a poor comparative question, but a rather simple one, with a clear delineation between the choices (insult or accurate portrayal, respectively). You have posted something I like to call a non-answer. Simply put, you are attempting to ignore my question, by making a claim which is patently false. To begin with, you accused me of insulting you in the post before I asked the question and in point of fact, my question directly addressed this alleged insult. It is, therefore, impossible for me to have mixed insults into my questions.

I maintain, that you have not answered my question because a truthful answer will erase any shred of credibility you might have imagined yourself having. It will show that your argument roughly condenses into two fallacies: "My evidence is true because it is true." and "Your evidence is faulty because I question it."

Perhaps, now you would like to tell me, once again, that I don't understand "how stuff works." I offer you the opportunity to explain it to me.

[Brocktoon]

a) You can explain yourself to me.
b) You can try and satisfy my questions.

[If you want?]

Your 'question' [which was rhetorical and based on absurd comparison] was not really a question but a scheme. [see above]

I have already explained that Continental Drift [note.. 'Drift'] presumes a beginning point.
The whole geometry thing about 'Spheres' is why an end-point must be in this.

Gravity or Light do not make good comparisons... even if I was to be theorise light speed is decreasing or Gravity has been different before [a different topic and one you have no idea my position because its a completely different concept.]

So really.. your analogy sucks and therefore your question [which was trying to dupe me into accepting your premise] was an insulting question.

It was cute though!

[know1nozme]

*Wrong Answer!*
Thank's for playing, but...
No Cookie For You http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/sunglasses.gif

This is your second non-answer in a row, but I have no need to press you further because you have provided me with this:

a) You can explain yourself to me.
b) You can try and satisfy my questions.
In doing so, you have proven my point. This set of statements lines up perfectly with the fallacious method of circular argument which I've outlined. A method which anyone reading your previous posts can see that you employ.

You will not admit to my analysis of your methodology, however YOU CANNOT DENY IT. If you could, it would have been a simple matter for you to do so. Such a denial might have allowed you to continue appearing to be a reasonable person, worthy of engaging in debate until someone actually put you to the test. However, at that point, you would have been forced to either return to your circular reasoning or admit that your thesis was incorrect (which you will not do under any circumstances). You will stubbornly remain blind to anything which doesn't conform to your narrow view of the universe. There is no point in ANYONE engaging you in intelligent debate of any kind, because you have shown yourself to be among the willfully ignorant... Again.

[Brocktoon]

KNow1knozme,

At this point you are fooling no one, especially me. Of course you were answered.
You made an invalid comparison and wrongly assigned it to me as my methodology.
You did not ask a question but rather insisted "Thats You isnt it? Isnt it!?"

Well of course its not and you have been told why.

Just formulating pseudo-articulate 'dismissals' and posing 'as if' you are replying to something different will not change the facts.

The fact is, you failed to 'slam dunk' me with your crappy rhetoric and now you have to live with feeling silly.
You should.

Enjoy.

[Brocktoon]

Just in case you want to pretend you werent answered (and consider it a bonus for you)

Your 'question' [which was rhetorical and based on absurd comparison] was not really a question but a scheme. [see above]

I have already explained that Continental Drift [note.. 'Drift'] presumes a beginning point.
The whole geometry thing about 'Spheres' is why an end-point must be in this.

Gravity or Light do not make good comparisons... even if I was to be theorise light speed is decreasing or Gravity has been different before [a different topic and one you have no idea my position because its a completely different concept.]

So really.. your analogy sucks and therefore your question [which was trying to dupe me into accepting your premise] was an insulting question.

[mother_nature's_son]

Drift is now over.
Sure, several inches here and there now that the continents now back into each other.Now that the continents back into each other?

So they were once 'floating' across Earth's crust?

Your understanding of plate tectonics is elementary at best. And the nerve you have, to pretend that you actually know what you are talking about....

Its hilarious that you insist Drift must have always been exactly the same as now - yet. .. you are willing to accept a completely imaginary story about Dry Land Bridges as 'fact' - even though there are NO land bridges.
(Nasa has proven this)I never gave any exact numbers in regard to continental drift (once again you are being dishonest). I have always said that the continents drift a few inches per year. I recognize that continental drift fluctuates within a basic range. To be specific, the range is around 1-15 centimeters, or 0-6 inches, per year...

...Certainly not 4 feet a day as creationists may suggest.

Proof?

http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/Figures/seaflor1.gif


They are called magnetic stripes, and they can be found parallel to mid-ocean ridges on the sea floor.

They are created when magma cools and the iron contained within polarizes in either a positive or negative direction.

What determines the direction of polarization?

Earth's magnetic field. The stripes are actually alternating directions of polarized isotopes, caused by reversals in the magnetic field.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_pics/F1.12a.gif

Through this geologic record, not only can we verify the existence of magnetic reversals and seafloor spreading, but we discover that neither of the processes have dramatically slowed down or sped up over the past millions of years.

[StonerBill]

Brock says:

Your understanding of plate tectonics is elementary at best. And the nerve you have, to pretend that you actually know what you are talking about....

No, I understand It perfectly, much better than you.

You keep telling me you have proof, when all you have is some picture that means nothing to me. Isnt it funny how you can believe in some colourful picture that some random scientist draws, and then claim that you are the authority on teh subject.

Even though I know everything about everything, i choose not to show my understanding, and instead make out as though im keeping it simple, or dumbing it down for the people who keep trying to explain things to me when they dont realise that they cant explain anything to me caus i know absolutely everything and will not allow myself to be demeaned by having a non-believer actually explain something to me. Like when i like to slip in misconceptions into my reference to evolution or the way i like to make statements about plate tectonics that show the amount of plate tectonics you could find in a children's science book. Actually thats all I used to read as a child, creationist science books.

By the way, im gay.


Thanks Brock! :cool: :H :sunglasse

[Shane99X]

Now that the continents back into each other?

So they were once 'floating' across Earth's crust?

Your understanding of plate tectonics is elementary at best. And the nerve you have, to pretend that you actually know what you are talking about....

I never gave any exact numbers in regard to continental drift (once again you are being dishonest). I have always said that the continents drift a few inches per year. I recognize that continental drift fluctuates within a basic range. To be specific, the range is around 1-15 centimeters, or 0-6 inches, per year...

...Certainly not 4 feet a day as creationists may suggest.

Proof?

http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/Figures/seaflor1.gif


They are called magnetic stripes, and they can be found parallel to mid-ocean ridges on the sea floor.

They are created when magma cools and the iron contained within polarizes in either a positive or negative direction.

What determines the direction of polarization?

Earth's magnetic field. The stripes are actually alternating directions of polarized isotopes, caused by reversals in the magnetic field.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_pics/F1.12a.gif

Through this geologic record, not only can we verify the existence of magnetic reversals and seafloor spreading, but we discover that neither of the processes have dramatically slowed down or sped up over the past millions of years.
Thank you, that does make sense. :)

[Brocktoon]

Thank you, that does make sense. :)
So easily duped are the masses.

All he did was show you pictures of magnetic striping.
Fine.

Then, for absolutely no reason other than the evolutionists imagination a really LOooooooong period of time is assigned to the stripes.

More on that later.

[know1nozme]

The fact is, you failed to 'slam dunk' me with your crappy rhetoric and now you have to live with feeling silly.That's ok, little buddy. I never expected you to actually admit anything. You just keep going around and around.

Eventually everyone will realize that you are just wasting their time and stop playing with you. Like me. :sunglasse

[POPthree13]

Brocktoon -

The study of plate-techtonics has nothing to do with 'evolutionists'. As you call them. You simply call anyone who disagrees with your less-than-scientific descriptions of things as 'evolutionists'. Despite the fact that nearly all scientists, and rational people who have truly studied the process, believe that evolution occured doesn't make any of them 'evolutionists'. Few could care lesss about this debate and therefore have no reason to choose sides.

The size of the bands can be determined by many, many measurements.
1)You can measure the actual drift, which they do.
2)You can measure the time between bands - since we have a quite complete catalog of all polaraity shifts based on data collected around the world.
3)You can even date the rock as you get further from the rift and measure sedimentation deposits on it.

[POPthree13]

PS: Maybe he did just put a chart in, but it is a widely accepted illustration that can be found referenced by dozens of geology sites and supported by scientists who study volcanos, the ocean, cartography, etc.


Where is your contrary evidence? Where are your supporting scientists (without motives)? The best you can do is attempt to name-call the evidence out of existence. Very christian of ya.

[Brocktoon]

Pop.. you are correct to say that super-slow continental drift theory has nothing to do with evolutionism.

In fact. Continental Drift was something Evolutionists were caught surprised by (despite now fake acting as if its 'theirs').

Further to that.. Dramatic fluctuations in Polarity have stunned everyone and no one saw that coming either.
Once again, Evolutionists (and Superslow theorists) have pretended 'as if' it all fits into their theory.

But yes, although it supports the Genesis model, Continental Drift and Polarity fluctuations do not necessarily have any bearing on whether Fish morphed into dinosaurs who then morphed into Budgees.

However..

Evolutionists have needed the billions of years in order for their theory to stay alive. (so they think).
In that sense they are desperate to taking shocking Creationist discoveries like Continental drift and simply assign a lonnnnnng age period to it.

[Brocktoon]

Of course, Ultra-Slow Theory Geologists will simply assign long periods of time to these stripes.
They have to.

There is no reason to, other than just simply saying 'Oh yes.. that happened over 10s of thousands of years."

This is often based on nothing more than the principle of 'least astonishment'.

A fascinating articles here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp

and in particular what interests me:

A decade ago, Prévot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA).3 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp#r3),4 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp#r4),5 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp#r5) Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prévot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about 3° a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool.6 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp#r6) Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,

"most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment — ‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’"

[StonerBill]

Exactly, you jsut proved why evolution existed and that every other post youve written has come out of your arse! haha! sucked in

[Brocktoon]

Wow.. that coming from an Australian no less.

[POPthree13]

Brocktoon:

There is evidence from a variety of sources that the earth is 4.55 billion years old (+/-1%).

The oldest rocks on earth date to 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old using SEVERAL radioactive dating methods. Within those rocks there are mineral deposits that are 4.1 to 4.2 billion years old. Another dating technique is to measure the occurance of three isotopes of radioactive lead which are found on earth and in the solar system. You can also get an approximation of the age of earth by studing the stratigrafy or layers, of sediments that have been deposited and comparing that with deposition rates. You can also, as previously mentioned, study the fluctuations in magnetic polarity. Another dating method (though not precise) is to model gravitational forces which were responsible for creating the early solar system. Another method is to study the long chains of families of life which lived and died on this planet.

ALL of these methods seem to support each other. None are exact, after all we are talking about events over 4 billion years old, but it is a WIDE body of knowledge which has allowed us to precisely date the earth to within a 1% margin of error (very good statistically).

'Evolutionists' as you like to call us are not some sect of conspirators as you'd have us protrayed. In fact many of us beleive in God, beleive in a divine hand in creation. We just don't ignore scientific evidence which shows us what took place to make life what it is. Evolution says nothing of how life came to be or what force might propel life to adapt over time into increasingly complex structures.

The church burned people at the stake for suggesting the earth was round. it is fear that drives men to hold on to control at all costs. Did that revalation destroy the church? No. Is that what those scientists were trying to do? No. WIll evolution destroy the church? No. Is that what scientists today are trying to do? No. The Pope even told us in 1996 that evolution is "more than a theory" and that it can be "compatible" with christian beleifs. Of course this assumes that the beleiver is able to broaden his understanding of God's involvement and read Genesis as the parable it was written as (ie: God didn't ACCTUALLY spin us off on a pottery wheel with his 'hands').

[Brocktoon]

Too many topics to respond in one post Pop but I want to quick reply to the last one:

Genesis presents itself as a real account.
It is not a 'Parable'.
Jesus refers to it as an actual event.
His Lineage is traced back to Adam.

The Pope was NOT suggesting or implying Genesis is a Parable either.
You added that yourself.

[POPthree13]

Ok then, we'll have to disagree on that. I see the Genesis story as a beautifully written parable or a completely nonsensical story. I would rather beleive the author knew what he was doing.

No your are right, the Pope didn't say Genesis is a parable the thing he said are in quotation marks and the rest paraphrased. I drew the conclusion I did because a 100% literal translation of Genesis is at odds with what is accepted by all sciences as what occured to produce life on earth. If this knowledge is "compatible" with christian beleifs as the pope suggests, the a less-than-literal interpretation is needed.

[Brocktoon]

You must see Genesis as a terrible, awkward and bizzaro parable?

When taken literally (which is exactly how it presents itself) you find no problem with sciences.
That of course, is the debate.

You seem to think the world evolved and wish that were scientific.
or you want to believe that its 'Scientific' i suppose.

You will just 'assert' that it is?

[StonerBill]

well thats all from where u stand isnt it. your saying that non beleivers want science. (maybe youve mixed up 'science' with order and structure?) atheism believes beleivers -want- to believe in somehting, as atheism is not an easy concept, emotionally. we beleive that most humans desire order and structure and tahts why they create religions.
humans want to believe things. atheism came about when people stopped following these meaningless desires for false but comforting truths. But, you obvisouly have a different oppinion which is simillar, but different, and turned around. no way to tell whos right in the end

[Brocktoon]

StonedBill.

You are Exhibit A as to reasons why Australians should not be allowed to smoke up and post any 'thoughts' anywhere.

Im pressed for time but I was trying to point out the failure of simply 'asserting' a position, then buttressing your position with your assertion.

(One Claims) that Evolutionism or UltraLong Dates are 'Scientific Facts'.
They support this by asserting its true because its a 'Scientific Fact'
Therefore (they suppose)
Any further discussion should continue 'as if' they just demonstrated and ended all question of it.

Here now - this discussion is debating whether or not long ages assigned to Rocks (or anything) are 'Scientific' or not.

That IS the debate.

[POPthree13]

You must see Genesis as a terrible, awkward and bizzaro parable?

When taken literally (which is exactly how it presents itself) you find no problem with sciences.
That of course, is the debate.

You seem to think the world evolved and wish that were scientific.
or you want to believe that its 'Scientific' i suppose.

You will just 'assert' that it is?
I don't see the world as scientific any more than I see it as religious. Science attempts to define the links on a causality chain using logic while religion attempts to define purpose, meaning and morals using faith, parables, and rituals. I see little corralary between the two. Neither could be describe as a good 'world view'.

Every major religion and culture throughout history has had what can be acalled a creation myth. These stories serve to center and individual in a mysterious and magical world. The contents of the christian creation myth were probably seen in a vision (however devinely inspired) by a man with no scientific understandign of mass, energy, planets, stars, life processes, etc. etc. The VERY best he could do is record the events as he saw him through his limited perception and I think the basic chain of events in Genesis is amazingly accurate when compared to modern understanding. Light did indeed separate from darkness, life did indeed emerge from the mud, the waters did indeeed BRING FORTH life as BOTH evolution and genesis suggest.
Now did days and nights pass before the sun was created? Well, no... because day is defined as a cycle of the sun. The sun had to exist for a 'day' to pass. Did Adam acctually name each animal on earth? With what time and with what language? Who did he talk to in this language? Did Eve really come from a rib, or is this a parable which teaches us how the sexes are related/correlated. Did she really eat of a tree, or did the 'knowledge of good and evil' cause judgement and sin to be invented (without a tree).

As a 'true' story it has many holes. As a lesson-carrying parable (as lessons were often carried int he time) it holds tremendous accuracy, heavy moral lessons and gives us a sense of understanding in big universe.

[gnrm23]

the word we need here is "myth" --- not in the sense of falsehood or fairy tale, but in the sense of a truth deeper than mere fact...
ymmv...

[Brocktoon]

I dont need that compromised definition popularised by Joseph Campbell.
The Ark might be a parable or it might be a fact but Im not going to think Im appealing to both truths by enacting the Joseph Campbell plea bargain.

Hey im up too late.
Gnite

[cerridwen]

I've always liked the Noah's Ark story when I was a kid... there are a lot of greatly illustrated versions of that story...

[Brocktoon]

I never did hear anything about this expedition last summer?

Did I miss something
Did it get cancelled

Did they find nothing at all?

Its just my own personal 'hypothesis' but I suspect the Ark would be pretty much decomposed - unless - sub-zero temperatures started up fairly soon after its landing?
Especially if its sunk in a lake (which these particular explorers suggest)

I dunno

[BlackGuardXIII]

I've always liked the Noah's Ark story when I was a kid... there are a lot of greatly illustrated versions of that story...
Me too, it really is a highlight of the whole book, as far as entertaining morality plays go.
The other great thing about it is that it is also one of the many tales that were adopted from the Babylonians, along with the original earthling being 'adamae', the garden of paradise, 'edenu', the 7 day week, etc.
The flood is far too universally refered to by cultures world wide to not have something to it.
I agree with the book Cataclysm, which shows copious evidence that such an event did happen, when the gravitational force of a massive object that passed very close by earth pulled the oceans over the continents.

MM, BG13

[Brocktoon]

For Clarification ..

BlackGuards Opinion that Genesis was 'borrowed' from Babylonians is entirely his own and should not be confused with facts.

It should also be noted he is assuming it is not based on a real event.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[BlackGuardXIII]

For Clarification ..

BlackGuards Opinion that Genesis was 'borrowed' from Babylonians is entirely his own and should not be confused with facts.

It should also be noted he is assuming it is not based on a real event.

Just wanted to clear that up.
I am assuming nothing of the sort........read the post before you directly contradict it, and claim the opposite of what I wrote.
I know more about the 'real' event than you ever will, cuz i actually study the geologists and archeologists who researched it. And I am sure your 'facts' are far more solid than all other humans 'opinions'
he he he............

[Brocktoon]

BlackGuard Said"

"...it is also one of the many tales that were adopted from the Babylonians"

If indeed its based on a real event (and its now certain, at the very minumum that region was devastated by a massive catastrophic flood)..
Why would it be 'Borrowed'.

Do you 'Discover' that a Canadian Newspaper reported the bombing on Pearl Harbour and conclude that American Newspapers 'Borrowed' the Tale from them?
After all.. they use a lot of the exact same words and placenames!

[BlackGuardXIII]

BlackGuard Said"

"...it is also one of the many tales that were adopted from the Babylonians"

If indeed its based on a real event (and its now certain, at the very minumum that region was devastated by a massive catastrophic flood)..
Why would it be 'Borrowed'.

Do you 'Discover' that a Canadian Newspaper reported the bombing on Pearl Harbour and conclude that American Newspapers 'Borrowed' the Tale from them?
After all.. they use a lot of the exact same words and placenames!
I am convinced that the extinction level event of approx. 12 500 years ago is proven by enough evidence that has been analyzed.
The story of the ark is symbolic, and echoed in the Moses in the basket, and Jesus in the womb, as being times when the future of the faith was contained within one person.
Just my opinion, not fact, as I am not privy to the sources of your clearly correct and indisputable facts.

[ChiefCowpie]

ANCIENT HIEROGLYPHICS
Archaeologist Zachariah Sitchin is renowned for his studies of the hieroglyphs and stone carvings of the Summerians, an ancient culture that appeared mysteriously between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago. Sitchin discovered fired clay tablets showing the solar system with 12 planets orbiting around the sun. The thing is, 7,000 years ago they didn't didn’t know how to fire clay and they thought the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.

There is the problem of 12 planets - astronomists have only documented nine. However, there is some evidence of a tenth planet beyond Jupiter; Planets eleven and twelve may be out there on huge orbits. Evidence for this ? Every 26,000 years or so, the normal cycle of earth is put out of whack in a big way: Ice Ages, the Dinosaur apocalypse, Noah's Arc. Floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, freezes. A possible explanation: The eleventh or twelfth planet (or both) reach the point in their orbit that brings them closest to earth. As a result, Earth is thrown off its gravitational axis. This is known as a pole shift.

Pole shifting or no, it’s amazing that the Summerians knew of any planets orbiting the sun let alone planets we have not yet discovered.

[thumontico]

Brocktoon wins by pointing out a term differing only in semantics. Well played, too bad you don't really exist.

[Brocktoon]

"Just my opinion, not fact, as I am not privy to the sources of your clearly correct and indisputable facts"

There is hope for you yet!

Weirdly.. I heard ChiefcowPie make a non-stupid observation too!

Yes, it almost appears as if the earliest post-deluge civilisations had some special knowledge of the world around us.
Eventually that was lost and now we are starting to get it back again.

[ChiefCowpie]

I never did hear anything about this expedition last summer?

Did I miss something
Did it get cancelled

Did they find nothing at all?

Its just my own personal 'hypothesis' but I suspect the Ark would be pretty much decomposed - unless - sub-zero temperatures started up fairly soon after its landing?
Especially if its sunk in a lake (which these particular explorers suggest)

I dunno
Michael Lawrence Morton (Milamo@aol.com)
My Assessment of "Noah's House" ..
Wed Mar 17, 2004 22:14
152.163.252.6




No; I'm not talking property tax.

It seems there is some sort of structure in the "general vicinity"
of the remains of the "Ark of Ziusudra" in Eastern Turkey,
that is called "Noah's House" by some. My instincts tell me
it is probably a structure in the sense of a "monument" .. probably originally
named "in-honor" of Ziusudra-Utnapishtim.

On the 14th of December, 2003, I received an email from a member of the
"Wyatt Group" on Yahoo's group-email system.
(These people are mostly "religious fundamentalists").
But; at least 2 of them have either directly or indirectly sent me coordinates
taken *on-site* via GPS-units .. coordinates for the site of the actual_remains_of the Ark of Ziusudra-Utnapishtim .. and coordinates for "Noah's House".
I have no reason to question the authenticity of any of these GPS-unit readings.

The email sent to me on the 14th of December, 2003, had the following coordinates
for the "House of Noah" .. which, again; I'm thinking this is a "monument" ..
not a "house" as such. It appears that this structure (remains) is about 10 to 15
miles NW of the site of the remains of the Ark of Ziusudra.

39 deg 37.954 min North. 43 deg 59.253 min E.Greenwich.

Here is my assessment ..

82505.9225 North ..
= 39(deg) * 37(min) * 57.17666147(sec) North.

8800.631733 E.Giza ..
= 12(deg) * 51(min) * 14.38011721(sec) E.Giza.
[ E.Greenwich .. 43 deg 59 min 15.18 sec ].

Grid Point Value .. "House of Ziusudra" ..
(82505.9225 / 8800.631733) = 9.375
------------------------------------

[BlackGuardXIII]

Thanks Chief,

mitakuye oyasin, blackguardxiii

[Brocktoon]

Thanks Chief,

mitakuye oyasin, blackguardxiii
What language is that BlackGuard?
CockAsian?

To Honour ChiefCowPies self appointment of the sacred title of 'Chief' but mockingly of Cow Shit?

Yikes

[BlackGuardXIII]

i am not certain, but guess it is Sioux.

it means 'to all my relations' referring to the idea we are all one family.

[Brocktoon]

Chief Cowpie is a Cockasian Essene.

Im sure you two have lots to talk about ;)

[BlackGuardXIII]

Chief Cowpie is a Cockasian Essene.

Im sure you two have lots to talk about ;)
I am an apathetic ignoramagnostic. Dont care if anyone agrees, and dont know much of anything for certain. But I believe in miracles, prayer, and Spirit.